IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aiy/journl/v2y2016i4p500-508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Government Procurements as a Tool for the Development of Small and Medium Business in Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Gafurova, G. T.
  • Notfullina, G. N.
  • Fukina, S. P.

Abstract

The question of the development of small and medium business is relevant for several decades. This article considers questions regarding the support of small business through the government procurement system. In the framework of the present study, the author attempted to systematize data on the dynamics (since the adoption of the Federal Public Contracts Act), and the structure of government procurement in terms of participation of small businesses in the procurement process, which revealed certain trends. The main research methods were vertical and horizontal analysis of dynamic series, correlation and regression models of the panel data. Data on the participation of small businesses in government procurement are grouped according to various criteria depending on the purpose of analysis. Groups of data were analyzed by 83 subjects of the Russian Federation, which enabled a full-scale assessment of the effectiveness of procurement in terms of the economy. To assess the influence of procurement on the development of small businesses, three hypotheses were put forward: increasing the number of customers placing orders for small businesses, as well as the reduction in the share of customers who do not meet the requirements of the law on the 15-percent threshold; this leads to an increase in budgetary savings, the increase in the number of applications for small businesses leads to an increase in the number of data entities in the regions, the number of orders placed for small businesses affect the cash ow of small businesses. On the basis of panel data for the period 2011–2015 years, a uni ed information system of state and municipal procurement which built econometric models, have confirmed the hypothesis put forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Gafurova, G. T. & Notfullina, G. N. & Fukina, S. P., 2016. "Government Procurements as a Tool for the Development of Small and Medium Business in Russia," R-Economy, Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, vol. 2(4), pages 500-508.
    • Handle: RePEc:aiy:journl:v:2:y:2016:i:4:p:500-508
    DOI: 10.15826/recon.2016.2.4.046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10995/46905
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.15826/recon.2016.2.4.046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nakabayashi, Jun, 2013. "Small business set-asides in procurement auctions: An empirical analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 28-44.
    2. Amarjit Gill & Suraj P. Sharma & Harvinder S. Mand, 2012. "Growth plans of small business in India: individual influences," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 16(1), pages 33-47.
    3. A.Vilensky, 1996. "The Stages of Small Business Development in Russia," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, vol. 7.
    4. Dimitri Mardas & George Papachristou & Nikos Varsakelis, 2008. "Public Procurement and Foreign Direct Investment Across France, Germany, Italy and the UK," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 36(2), pages 183-193, June.
    5. McGowan, Francis, 1991. "Utilities and public procurement: An introduction," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 110-115, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gulnara Gafurova & Svetlana Fookina & Galina Notfullina, 2016. "Public Procurement as an Instrument for the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Business in Russia," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(4), pages 1233-1243.
    2. Bernhardt, Dan & Liu, Tingjun & Sogo, Takeharu, 2020. "Costly auction entry, royalty payments, and the optimality of asymmetric designs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Philippe Jehiel & Laurent Lamy, 2020. "On the Benefits of Set-Asides," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1655-1696.
    4. José Alcalde & Matthias Dahm, "undated". "Supplier Diversity before the Time of Cholera," Discussion Papers in Economics 20/07, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    5. Barbara Orser & Allan Riding & Julie Weeks, 2019. "The efficacy of gender-based federal procurement policies in the United States," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 491-515, August.
    6. M. Vannini & B. Mccannon & R. Marselli & C. Detotto, 2022. "Experts and Arbitration Outcomes: Insights from Public Procurement Contract Disputes," Working Paper CRENoS 202204, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    7. Rosa, Benjamin, 2016. "Subcontracting Requirements and the Cost of Government Procurement," MPRA Paper 77392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Nicholas Ryan, 2020. "Holding Up Green Energy," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2294, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    9. Hiroshi Ohashi, 2009. "Effects of Transparency in Procurement Practices on Government Expenditure: A Case Study of Municipal Public Works," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 34(3), pages 267-285, May.
    10. De Silva, Dakshina G. & Kosmopoulou, Georgia & Lamarche, Carlos, 2017. "Subcontracting and the survival of plants in the road construction industry: A panel quantile regression analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 113-131.
    11. Benjamin V. Rosa, 2019. "Resident Bid Preference, Affiliation, and Procurement Competition: Evidence from New Mexico," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 161-208, June.
    12. Klênio de Souza Barbosa & Pierre C. Boyer, 2011. "Competition for Local Public Services with Learning-by-doing and Transferability," Working Papers 06-2011, Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto.
    13. Alcalde, José & Dahm, Matthias, 2020. "Affirmative Action Through Endogenous Set-Asides," QM&ET Working Papers 20-1, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    14. Tkachenko, Andrey, 2022. "State-business relations and access to external financing," BOFIT Discussion Papers 10/2022, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    15. Paulo R. C. Reis & Sandro Cabral, 2015. "Public procurement strategy: the impacts of a preference programme for small and micro businesses," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 103-110, March.
    16. Ni Yan & WenTing Tao, 2023. "Set-Asides in USDA Food Procurement Auctions," Papers 2302.05772, arXiv.org.
    17. Tkachenko, Andrey, 2022. "State-business relations and access to external financing," BOFIT Discussion Papers 10/2022, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    18. Sandro Cabral, 2017. "Reconciling Conflicting Policy Objectives in Public Contracting: The Enabling Role of Capabilities," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(6), pages 823-853, September.
    19. repec:zbw:bofitp:2022_010 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Rodrigo Carril & Audrey Guo, 2023. "The Impact of Preference Programs in Public Procurement: Evidence from Veteran Set-Asides," Working Papers 1417, Barcelona School of Economics.
    21. Koki Arai & Emi Morimoto, 2019. "The Construction Industry and (Dis)Economies of Scope: Empirical Research in the Hokkaido Procurement Auction," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 281-292, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aiy:journl:v:2:y:2016:i:4:p:500-508. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Irina Turgel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seurfru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.