Defence spending: how to reduce corruption risks

Defence spending: how to reduce corruption risks

When a company lands a contract with a government for supplying goods or services without competing against bidders, there’s a real risk of corruption and overpricing. The company – as the sole provider – may feel that it can charge what it wants without worrying about the competition, weakening the incentive to be efficient and provide a good deal.

These kinds of deals, which fall into the category of single source or non-competitive procurement, are prevalent in the defence sector – and were on the rise between 2008 and 2011 in the US and UK, according to a new report by Transparency International UK’s Defence and Security Programme (TI-DSP) and the International Defense Acquisition Resource Management Programme.

The award of single source contracts in the defence sector has attracted growing critical attention in the last few years. In an era of austerity and public spending cuts, many have turned their attention to how governments can do more with less.

Sometimes there is justification for a Ministry of Defence to sign a single source contract: if an item is under copyright, for example, or only one company has the technology to meet a specific military need. But there have been too many examples when single sourcing has been a factor contributing to corruption at worst or simply a bad deal for taxpayers.

TI-DSP’s report calls for a greater emphasis on open competition and greater transparency in procurement.

Limiting single source contracts, and being transparent about such contracts when they’re required, will help ensure that taxpayer funds are put to best use. At this time of economic austerity, limiting the risk of misspending, waste and corruption is vital.”

– Mark Pyman, TI-DSP Director

Single sourcing: a multi-country analysis

TI-DSP contacted 45 countries to request data on their single source contract awards in compiling the report. Of those 45, only seven had publicly available data on single source defence procurement, or were willing to release it.

The countries that responded were Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the UK and the US. Strikingly, the European Defence Agency, which publicly commits to transparency, declined to share data, stating that it needed to have the permission of the countries involved.

Research showed that almost half of the defence contracts awarded in Poland, the UK and the US were single-source contracts. Since a similar study was released in 2008, the percentage of single source procurement in the US and UK has increased substantially. In Poland and Bulgaria, however, it has decreased, possibly because of reforms that focused on improving competition and introduced e-procurement.

The graph below shows the reported levels of awarding single source contracts from 2009 to 2011:

Data for the report was only available up to 2011 given the length of time it took for the research to be completed. Despite this, findings remain relevant today as practices have not changed.

 

Here’s how to tackle the problem

  1. Defence ministers and defence procurement chiefs should publish the number of single-source contracts awarded and the justifications for awarding them.
  2. National legislators and legislative defence committees should demand open reporting from the Ministry of Defence and regularly request data on single-source percentages.
  3. Civil society should demand defence procurement information from the Ministry of Defence and monitor defence policies and practices.
  4. The European Defence Agency should embrace its commitment to transparency, and member states should grant organisations like the academy permission to publish their competitive procurement levels.

To find out more, view the report here.

For any press enquiries please contact press@transparency.org

Latest

Support Transparency International

The theme for the 18th edition of the International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) is announced

Building on the priorities set out in the Panama Declaration, the 18th IACC in Denmark from 22 to 24 October 2018 will move the pledge of acting together now to concrete action.

A new home for our corruption research

Transparency International is excited to announce the launch of the Knowledge Hub, a dedicated online space for our research.

Pardon me? Presidential clemency and impunity for grand corruption

Recent events in Brazil and Peru have shone a spotlight on the issue of presidential pardons in cases of grand corruption. Read more to find out the best practices that legislators can use to ensure that pardons are not abused for political purposes.

Stopping Dirty Money: the Global Effective-O-Meter

As of December 2017, global effectiveness at stopping money laundering stands at 32% effectiveness.

Corruption in the USA: The difference a year makes

A new survey by Transparency International shows that the US government has a long way to go to win back citizens’ trust.

Anti-Corruption Day 2017: Empowering citizens’ fight against corruption

The 9 December, is Anti-corruption Day. A key part of Transparency International’s work is to help people hold their governments to account. Have a look at what we've been doing around the world!

Digital Award for Transparency: Honouring digital initiatives to fight corruption

The Digital Award for Transparency awards individuals and civil society organisations who have developed digital technology tools used to fight corruption. The award aims at strengthening and promoting existing initiatives that promote good governance through three categories: Open Data, Citizen Engagement and Anti-Corruption Tools.

Social Media

Follow us on Social Media

Would you like to know more?

Sign up to stay informed about corruption news and our work around the world