Consult this publication on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2015-en.

This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org for more information.

Government at a Glance 2015Government at a Glance 2015 provides the latest available data on public administrations in OECD countries. Where possible, it also reports data for Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Latvia, the Russian Federation, South Africa and Ukraine. This edition contains new indicators on public sector integrity, regulatory governance, the role of centres of government, digital government, budget practices and procedures, open government data, and a more comprehensive set of data on the level of access, responsiveness and quality of services to citizens. This edition also includes a special section on the impact of budget constraints on employment and compensation reforms in governments since 2009.

Each indicator in the publication is presented in a user-friendly format, consisting of graphs and/or charts illustrating variations across countries and over time, brief descriptive analyses highlighting the major findings conveyed by the data, and a methodological section on the definition of the indicator and any limitations in data comparability. For the first time, a database containing qualitative and quantitative indicators on government is available on line. It will be updated twice a year as new data are released. The database, countries fact sheets and other online supplements can be found at www.oecd.org/gov/govataglance.htm.

Contents

Chapter 1. Inclusive governments for a more inclusive society

Chapter 2. Public finance and economics

Chapter 3. Public employment

Chapter 4. Institutions

Chapter 5. Budgeting practices and procedures

Chapter 6. Human resource management

Chapter 7. Public sector integrity

Chapter 8. Regulatory governance

Chapter 9. Public procurement

Chapter 10. Digital government

Chapter 11. Core government results

Chapter 12. Serving citizens

isbn 978-92-64-23346-1 42 2015 08 1 P

Govern

ment at a G

lance 2015

Government at a Glance 2015

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2015 © OEC

9. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Size of public procurement

Strategic public procurement

E-procurement

Central purchasing bodies

D 2015 135

9. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Size of public procurement

Public procurement refers to the purchase by governmentsand state-owned enterprises of goods, services and worksand represents a significant amount of government expendi-ture. In 2013, governments spent, on average, 29% of the totalgeneral government expenditure on public procurementcompared to an average level of 30% in 2009. As public pro-curement accounts for a substantial portion of the taxpayers’money, governments are expected to carry it out efficientlyand with high standards of conduct in order to ensure highquality of service delivery and safeguard the public interest.

The size of public procurement varies across OECD coun-tries, ranging from less than 20% of the general governmentexpenditure in Greece and Portugal to more than 35% incountries such as Estonia, Korea and Japan. In terms of GDP,OECD countries reported an average share of 12.1% spent onpublic procurement in 2013; however, some countries suchas Ireland and Switzerland spent less than 10% of their GDPon public procurement whereas in countries such asFinland, France, Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden the fig-ure was higher than 15% of their GDP. Allocating govern-ment expenditures efficiently and strategically could help togenerate fiscal space, which in turn could enable the realiza-tion of fiscal savings or reallocation of resources.

Public procurement at the state and local levels accountson average for 63% of total procurement spending acrossOECD countries. In general, federal states report high levelof sub-central government spending on procurement, asevidenced by Canada (87%) and Belgium (84%). Nonethe-less, unitary states should also direct their efforts toincrease efficiency in public procurement at thesub-central government levels as high levels of sub-centralgovernment spending on procurement are observed incountries such as Italy (78%), Finland (70%) and Japan (68%).

Further reading

OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procure-ment, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2014), Going Green: Best Practices for Green Procurement,OECD, Paris.

OECD (2013), “Implementing the OECD Principles for Integ-rity in Public Procurement: Progress since 2008”, OECDPublic Governance Reviews, OECD, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201385-en.

Figure notes

9.1: Data for Chile and Turkey are not available. Data for Colombia andRussia are for 2012 rather than 2013

9.2: Data for Australia, Chile and Turkey are not available. Local govern-ment is included in state government for the United States. Socialsecurity funds are included in central government in Ireland,New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States.Data for Colombia are for 2012 rather than 2013.

Information on data for Israel: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932315602.

Methodology and definitions

The size of general government procurement spend-ing is estimated using data from the OECD NationalAccounts Statistics (database), based on the Systemof National Accounts (SNA). General government pro-curement is defined as the sum of intermediate con-sumption (goods and services purchased bygovernments for their own use, such as accounting orinformation technology services), gross fixed capitalformation (acquisition of capital excluding sales of

fixed assets, such as building new roads) and socialtransfers in kind via market producers (purchases bygeneral government of goods and services producedby market producers and supplied to households).

Government procurement here includes the values ofprocurement for central, state and local governments.The sub-central component refers to state and localgovernments. Social security funds have beenexcluded in this analysis, unless otherwise stated inthe notes (however Figure 9.3, Government procure-ment as a share of total government expenditures,2007, 2009 and 2013 and Figure 9.4 Government pro-curement by levels of government including socialsecurity funds, 2013 are available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249035 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249047 respectively). State govern-ment is only applicable to the nine OECD federalstates: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany,Mexico, Spain (considered a quasi-federal country),Switzerland and United States. Public corporationswere also excluded in the estimation of procurementspending.

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2015 © OECD 2015136

9. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Size of public procurement

9.1. General government procurement as percentage of GDP and as share of total government expenditures, 2013

Source: OECD National Accounts Statistics (database). Data for Australia are based on a combination of Government Finance statistics and NationalAccounts data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249013

9.2. General government procurement by level of government, 2013

Source: OECD National Accounts Statistics (database).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249020

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500510152025

29.029.1

12.113.0

As share of total government expenditure (%)As percentage of GDP (%)

Russia

ColombiaLatvia

Netherlands

MexicoItaly

PortugalGreece

Slovenia

Poland

OECD UWA

NorwayFrance

United States

BelgiumAustria

DenmarkSwitzerland

SpainIreland

Luxembourg

Iceland

Czech RepublicAustraliaGermany

New Zealand

CanadaIsrael

Slovak RepublicFinland

United KingdomSweden

OECD WA

Hungary

Estonia

KoreaJapan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% Sub-central government Central government

CANBEL ES

P ITA DEU CHE FIN JPN

MEXSWE

USADNK

OECD W

AFR

APOL

NLD AUT

OECD U

WAKOR

CZENORISL

EST

GBRSVN

LUX

SVKHUN

PRTIR

LISR

GRCNZL COL

LVA

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2015 © OECD 2015 137

9. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Strategic public procurement

While efficiency and cost effectiveness are among the pri-mary objectives of public procurement, governments arealso increasingly using it to pursue additional secondarypolicy objectives. Secondary policy objectives could includepromoting sustainable green growth, the development ofsmall and medium-sized enterprises, innovation, stan-dards for responsible business conduct or broader indus-trial policy objectives, through their procurement policies.

The vast majority of OECD countries surveyed use public pro-curement as a tool to implement policies or strategies to fos-ter secondary policy objectives. In fact, 30 of them (94%),including Chile, Germany and Japan, have developed strate-gies or policies to support green public procurement, SMEsand/or innovative goods and services. Only twoOECD countries – Estonia and the Slovak Republic – havenever developed a public procurement strategy or a policy toaddress secondary policy objectives at the central level.

In sharp contrast, the number of OECD countries thatreport measuring the results of their strategies or policiesto promote environmental or socio-economic objectives issignificantly lower and exhibits differences between thepolicy objectives. Among the OECD countries surveyed whohave a strategy or policy developed at the central level or byprocuring entities (line ministries), 20 OECD countries (69%)including Belgium, Portugal, Sweden and the United Statesmeasure the results of their strategy or policy to supportgreen public procurement. 18 OECD countries (62%), in par-ticular, Australia, Poland, and Slovenia, measure the resultsof their strategy or policy to support SMEs. Only 11 OECDcountries (39%) including Canada, Korea and theUnited Kingdom measure the impact of their policy orstrategy to foster innovative goods and services.

For those countries that are not measuring the results oftheir strategies, the main challenges include the lack ofdata, as mentioned by, among others, Greece and Germany.Other countries such as Chile mentioned the lack of anappropriate methodology to measure the impact of theirpolicies supporting green public procurement and SMEs.Furthermore, insufficient incentives to measure the effectof policies and the lack of financial resources were men-tioned as constraints. In this context, the absence of a legalrequirement was also signalled as a factor hinderingthe measurement of green procurement and support forinnovative goods and services policies. For instance, Mex-ico and Norway acknowledged the absence of legal require-ment as the factors constraining the pursuit of thesemeasurements.

Further reading

OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procure-ment, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2013), “Implementing the OECD Principles for Integ-rity in Public Procurement: Progress since 2008”, OECDPublic Governance Reviews, OECD, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201385-en.

OECD (2014), “Procurement – Green Procurement”,www.oecd.org/corruption/ethics/procurement-green-procurement.htm.

Figure notes

9.5: Data unavailable for the Czech Republic and Israel. InNovember 2014, the Norwegian Parliament decided that green publicprocurement will once again be under the responsibility of theAgency for Public Management and eGovernment (Difi).

9.6: Data unavailable for the Czech Republic and Israel. Estonia, Norwayand the Slovak Republic are not included for the figure on support forgreen public procurement since policies or strategies for strategicpublic procurement have not been developed or have beenrescinded. For the same reason, Estonia, Iceland and the SlovakRepublic are not included for support for SMEs and Estonia, Greece,Iceland and Slovak Republic for support for innovative goods andservices.

Methodology and definitions

Data were collected through 2014 OECD Survey onPublic Procurement. 32 OECD countries responded tothe survey, as well as Brazil, Colombia and Russia,accession countries.

Respondents to the survey were country delegatesresponsible for procurement policies at the centralgovernment level and senior officials in central pur-chasing bodies.

Secondary policy objective refers to any of a variety ofenvironmental and socio-economic objectives suchas green growth, the development of small andmedium-sized enterprises, innovation or standardsfor responsible business conduct achieved throughthe use of public procurement. Governments increas-ingly use procurement as a policy lever to supportsuch objectives, in addition to the primary objectivesof public procurement: delivering goods and servicesnecessary to accomplish government mission in atimely, economical and efficient manner.

Green public procurement is defined by the EuropeanCommission as “a process whereby public authoritiesseek to procure goods, services and works with areduced environmental impact throughout their lifecycle when compared to goods, services and workswith the same primary function that would otherwisebe procured.”

Innovative (goods/services) are those characterized bya new or significantly improved product or process.For an innovation to be considered as such, it needs tohave been implemented, which is interpreted as hav-ing been introduced on the market.

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2015 © OECD 2015138

9. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Strategic public procurement

9.5. Development of strategic public procurementby objective, 2014

Green publicprocurement

Support to SMEsSupport to innovativegoods and services

Australia ● ● ●

Austria ● ✦ ●

Belgium ✦● ● ●

Canada ✦● ● ●

Chile ✦● ✦● ●

Denmark ● ● ●

Estonia ❍ ❍ ❍

Finland ● ✦ ✦

France ✦● ✦● ✦●

Germany ● ● ●

Greece ✦● ● ❍

Hungary ✦ ● ●

Iceland ● ❍ ❍

Ireland ● ● ●

Italy ✦ ✦ ✦

Japan ● ● ●

Korea ● ● ●

Luxembourg ✦● ✦● ✦

Mexico ● ● ●

Netherlands ● ● ●

New Zealand ✦● ✦● ✦●

Norway ✦● ✦●

Poland ● ● ●

Portugal ● ✦ ✦

Slovak Republic ❍ ❍ ❍

Slovenia ✦● ● ●

Spain ✦● ✦● ✦●

Sweden ✦● ● ●

Switzerland ✦● ✦● ✦

Turkey ● ● ●

United Kingdom ● ● ●

United States ● ● ✦●

OECD total

✦ A strategy/policyhas beendeveloped bysome procuringentities

13 11 10

● A strategy/policyhas beendeveloped ata central level

27 25 23

A strategy/policyhas beenrescinded

1 0 0

❍ A strategy/policyhas never beendeveloped

2 3 4

Brazil ✦● ✦● ●

Colombia ✦ ● ●

Russia ❍ ● ❍

Source: OECD (2014) Survey on Public Procurement.1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249055

9.6. Measuring results of strategic public procurement’spolicies/strategies, 2014

Source: OECD (2014) Survey on Public Procurement.1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249069

Support for green public procurement

Support for SMEs

Support for innovative goods and services

No31.0%

Yes69.0%

Yes62.1%

No37.9%

Yes39.3%

No60.7%

Aust

riaBe

lgiu

mCa

nada

Denmark

Finland

France

Hungary

Italy

JapanKorea

Poland

NetherlandsPortugal

Slovenia

Spai

n

Swed

en

Switz

erla

nd

Turk

eyUnited Kingdom

United StatesAustraliaChile

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Luxembourg

Mexico

New

Zealand

Aust

ralia

Belg

ium

Aust

ria

Franc

e

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Japan

KoreaMexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Poland

Slovenia

SpainTurk

ey

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

Unite

d Sta

tes

Canad

aChileDenmark

Finland

Germany

Greece

Luxembourg

NorwayPortugal

Sweden

Aust

ria

Belg

ium

Cana

da

France

Italy

Korea

Netherlands

New Zealand

SpainTurkey

United Kingdom

Australia

Chile

Denm

arkGerm

any

Hung

ary

Irelan

dJapanLuxembourg

Mexico

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovenia

SwedenSw

itzerlandU

nited States

Finl

and

Switzerland

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2015 © OECD 2015 139

9. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

E-procurement

The use of digital technology in the public sector is a driverof efficiency and supports the effectiveness of policies byenabling more open, transparent, innovative, participatoryand trustworthy government. In this light, the use ofe-procurement, defined as the use of information and com-munications technologies in public procurement, not onlyincreases efficiency by facilitating access to public tenders,thereby increasing competition and decreasing administra-tive burdens, but can also improve transparency by holdingpublic authorities more accountable.

All OECD countries that responded to the survey announceprocurement opportunities and provide tender documentsthrough their e-procurement systems. Moreover, 94% ofthem are mandated by law to announce procurementopportunities and 78% to provide tender documentsthrough their e-procurement systems, such as in Belgium,Mexico and Portugal.

Functionalities at the beginning of the procurement cycle, inparticular publishing of procurement plans (84%), electronicsubmission of bids (84%) and e-tendering (84%), are providedin most OECD countries surveyed. In contrast, functionalitiesrelated to the end of the procurement cycle (except for notifi-cation of award (94%)) are provided by a smaller number ofOECD countries. For example, fewer countries, in particularAustria, Denmark and New Zealand, provide e-auctions (ine-tendering) (63%), ordering (66%), electronic submission ofinvoices (56%) and ex post contract management (41%)through their e-procurement systems. Furthermore, themajority of the countries that provide these functionalities intheir e-procurement systems are not obliged to do so by law,with the exception of electronic submission of invoices.

The main challenge faced by both procuring entities andpotential bidders and suppliers to use e-procurement sys-tems are low knowledge and skills of ICT (44%) as men-tioned by Hungary, Poland and the United States, amongother OECD countries who responded to the survey. Lowinnovative organisational culture (41%) and low knowledgeof the economic opportunities raised by e-procurementsystems (34%) were identified as additional challenges forprocuring entities as evidenced in countries includingGreece, and Spain. Related to potential bidders and suppli-ers, 13 OECD countries including Canada, Italy and Sloveniaidentified difficulties to understand or apply the proce-dures and difficulties in the use of the functionalities asadditional challenges (41%).

Further reading

OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procure-ment, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2013), “Implementing the OECD Principles for Integ-rity in Public Procurement: Progress since 2008”, OECDPublic Governance Reviews, OECD, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201385-en.

Figure notes

9.7: Data unavailable for the Czech Republic and Israel. See Statlink forinformation on more functionalities.

9.8: Data unavailable for the Czech Republic and Israel. The challengesfor understanding or applying the procedure and for the use of func-tionalities are faced only by potential bidders/suppliers.

Methodology and definitions

Data were collected through 2014 OECD Survey onPublic Procurement that focused on strategic publicprocurement, e-procurement, central purchasingbodies, and public procurement at regional levels.Some 32 OECD countries responded to the survey, aswell as Brazil, Colombia and Russia. Respondents tothe survey were country delegates responsible forprocurement policies at the central government leveland senior officials in central purchasing bodies.

E-procurement refers to the integration of digitaltechnologies in the replacement or redesign ofpaper-based procedures throughout the procurementcycle.

Public procurement cycle refers to the sequence ofrelated activities, from needs assessment, throughcompetition and award, to payment and contractmanagement, as well as any subsequent monitoringor auditing.

More data on countries providing functionalities ine-procurement systems (Table 9.7) is available onlineat http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249077.

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2015 © OECD 2015140

9. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

E-procurement

9.7. Functionalities provided in e-procurement systems, 2014

Mandatory and provided Not mandatory but provided Not provided

Announcing tenders AUS, AUT, BEL, CAN, CHL, DNK, EST, FIN, FRA,DEU, GRC, HUN, IRL, ITA, KOR, LUX, MEX, NLD,

NZL, NOR, POL, PRT, SVK, SVN, ESP, SWE,CHE, TUR, GBR, USA

ISL, JPN

Electronic submission of bids(excluding by e-mails)

BEL, CHL, EST, FRA, GRC, ITA,MEX, PRT, USA

AUS, AUT, DNK, FIN, DEU, IRL, JPN, KOR, LUX,NLD, NZL, NOR, SVK, SVN, ESP, SWE, TUR, GBR

CAN, HUN, ISL, POL, CHE

e-tendering BEL, CAN, CHL, EST, GRC, IRL, ITA,MEX, CHE, USA

AUT, DNK, FIN, FRA, DEU, JPN, KOR, NLD, NZL,NOR, PRT, SVK, SVN, ESP, SWE, TUR, GBR

AUS, HUN, ISL, LUX, POL

Notification of award AUS, AUT, BEL, CAN, CHL, DNK, EST, FIN, DEU,GRC, HUN, IRL, KOR, MEX, NLD, NZL, NOR,

POL, PRT, SVK, SVN, ESP, SWE, CHE, TUR, USA

FRA, ITA, JPN, GBR ISL, LUX

Electronic submission of invoices(excluding by e-mails)

AUT, DNK, FIN, ITA, NLD, ESP,SVN, SWE, CHE, USA

FRA, DEU, ISL, JPN, KOR, NZL, NOR, GBR AUS, BEL, CAN, CHL, EST, GRC, HUN,IRL, LUX, MEX, POL, PRT, SVK, TUR

Ex post contract management CHE, TUR, USA DNK, FIN, DEU, ITA, JPN, KOR,NZL, NOR, SVN, SWE

AUS, AUT, BEL, CAN, CHL, EST, FRA,GRC, HUN, ISL, IRL, LUX, MEX, NLD,

POL, PRT, SVK, ESP, GBR

Source: OECD (2014) Survey on Public Procurement.1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249077

9.8. Main challenges to the use of e-procurement systems, 2014

Low knowledge/ICT skills

Low knowledge ofthe economic opportunities

raised by this tool

Low innovativeorganizational culture

Difficulties to understandor apply the procedure

Difficulties in the useof functionalities Do not know

Australia ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ XAustria X X X X X ✦●

Belgium ❍ ❍ ✦● ❍ ❍ XCanada ✦● ● ● ● ● XChile ❍ ● ❍ ● ● ✦

Denmark ❍ ❍ ❍ ● ● ✦

Estonia ❍ ✦● ❍ ❍ ❍ XFinland X X X X X ✦●

France X X X X X ✦●

Germany ✦ ✦● ✦ ❍ ● XGreece ● ✦● ✦● ❍ ❍ XHungary ✦● ❍ ✦ ● ● XIceland X X X X X ✦●

Ireland ❍ ❍ ❍ ● ❍ ✦

Italy ✦● ❍ ✦● ● ● XJapan ✦● ✦● ❍ ● ● XKorea ✦● ❍ ✦● ❍ ❍ XLuxembourg X X X X X ✦●

Mexico ✦ ✦ ✦ ❍ ❍ ●

Netherlands ✦● ✦● ❍ ● ● XNew Zealand ✦● ✦● ❍ ❍ ❍ XNorway ❍ ✦● ● ● ❍ XPoland ✦● ❍ ✦ ● ● XPortugal ✦● ❍ ❍ ● ❍ XSlovak Republic ● ✦ ❍ ❍ ● XSlovenia ✦● ✦● ✦● ● ● XSpain ● ✦● ✦● ❍ ❍ XSweden X X X X X ✦●

Switzerland X X X X X ✦●

Turkey ❍ ❍ ✦● ❍ ❍ XUnited Kingdom ✦ ● ✦ ❍ ● XUnited States ✦● ❍ ✦● ● ● X

OECD total✦ Procuring entities 14 11 13 X X 10● Potential bidders/suppliers 14 12 10 13 13 8❍ Not a major challenge 8 11 10 12 12 X

Brazil ✦● ✦● ✦ ● ● XColombia ✦● ✦● ✦● ❍ ❍ XRussia ❍ ❍ ❍ ● ❍ X

Source: OECD (2014) Survey on Public Procurement.1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249082

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2015 © OECD 2015 141

9. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Central purchasing bodies

A central purchasing body is a contracting authority that:i) acquires goods or services intended for one or more con-tracting authorities; ii) awards public contracts for works,goods or services intended for one or more contractingauthorities; or, iii) concludes framework agreements forworks, goods or services intended for one or more contract-ing authorities. Large procurement volumes could reduceprices by achieving economies of scale as well as increasecompetition. Furthermore, they reduce duplication, trans-action costs, and increase certainty, simplicity and unifor-mity, allowing for more focused delivery of policy goals.

Central Purchasing Bodies (CPBs) have been implementedin an increasing number of the OECD countries asevidenced by the established CPBs for example in Chile,Estonia, and Luxembourg. In fact, with the exception ofAustralia, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands, all OECDcountries that responded to the survey have establishedCPBs.

CPBs are embedded in the system of public administrationof each country and reflect the specific structures for theprovision of public services. Among the OECD countrieswho responded to have CPBs, almost all of them have aCPB(s) at the central level; while half of them also haveCPB(s) at the regional level. With regard to the legal statusof CPBs, 15.6% of OECD countries reported to have thesebodies which function as state-owned enterprises. This isevidenced by those in Finland, Italy and Turkey. However,the majority of CPBs in the OECD countries either operateunder a line ministry (28.1%) or function as a governmentagency (43.8%). In some countries, as in Ireland, a prelimi-nary discussion on the appropriate degree of independenceof the CPB is taking place.

Among the OECD countries surveyed, 78% of the CPBsundertake the role of acting as a contracting authorityaggregating demand and purchasing and as manager of thesystem for awarding framework agreements or other con-solidated instruments, from which contracting authoritiesthen order. In contrast, in fewer countries’ CPBs co-ordinatetraining for public officials in charge of public procurement(36%) and establish policies for contracting authorities (29%).CPBs in Greece, Ireland, Switzerland, the United Kingdomand the United States exercise all the above-mentionedfunctions whereas CPBs in nine OECD countries (32%) havea single role, e.g. in Estonia, Luxembourg and Poland.

The motivations reported to establish CPBs in OECD coun-tries include better prices of goods and services (100%),lower transaction costs (96%), improved capacity andexpertise (81%), increased legal, technical, economic andcontractual certainty (81%), and greater simplicity andusability (78%). Additionally, CPBs are increasingly playingan important role in the implementation of secondary pol-icy objectives. In fact, 54% of the CPBs in the OECD coun-tries surveyed include environmental consideration as

award criterion in more than half of the cases and smallernumbers of CPBs (25%) include support to SMEs in theirawarding criterion for more than half of the cases while36% do so rarely.

Further reading

OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Public Procure-ment, OECD, Paris.

OECD (2013), “Implementing the OECD Principles for Integ-rity in Public Procurement: Progress since 2008”, OECDPublic Governance Reviews, OECD, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201385-en.

Figure notes

9.9: The figure refers to the CPB at the central level where there existmultiple CPBs. Data are unavailable for the Czech Republic andIsrael. Some countries have several CPBs at the central level, as evi-denced by Germany. The Commonwealth of Australia does not havea CPB but the Department of Finance has established a number ofwhole of government arrangements. Some states and territories inAustralia have CPBs. In Mexico, the Ministry of Public Administrationhas the capacity to carry out certain functions as a CPB.

9.10: Data are unavailable for the Czech Republic and Israel. Australia,Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands and Russia do not have central pur-chasing bodies.

Methodology and definitions

Data were collected through 2014 OECD Survey on Pub-lic Procurement. 32 OECD countries responded to thesurvey, as well as Brazil, Colombia and Russia. Respon-dents to the survey were country delegates responsiblefor procurement policies at the central governmentlevel and senior officials in central purchasing bodies.

The nature of framework agreements varies by coun-try, but generally these are agreements between pro-curing entities and suppliers that establish certainterms and can facilitate the awarding of future con-tracts. Framework agreements are conducted intwo-stages: a first stage selects a supplier (or suppli-ers) or a contractor (or contractors) to be party (orparties) to a framework agreement with the procur-ing entity. In a second stage, a procurement contractis awarded under the framework agreement to a sup-plier or contractor party to the framework agree-ment.

Award of a procurement contract refers to the finalstage of the procurement resulting in the conclusionand entry into force of procurement between the pro-curing entity and selected supplier(s).

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2015 © OECD 2015142

9. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT

Central purchasing bodies

9.9. Legal status of central purchasing bodies, 2014

Source: OECD (2014) Survey on Public Procurement.1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249096

Aust

ralia

Japa

nM

exico

Netherl

ands

Belgium

Canada

Greece

IrelandPolandSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpain

SwitzerlandChile

Denmark

EstoniaGer

man

y

Hung

ary

Kore

aLuxe

mbour

g

New Zeala

ndNorwayPortugal

Sweden

United Kingdom

United States

Austria

Finland

FranceItaly

Turkey

Government agency: 43.8%

Under ministry: 28.1%

No CPB: 12.5%State-owned enterprise: 15.6%

Icel

and

9.10. Role of central purchasing bodies, 2014

Contracting authority aggregatingdemand and purchasing

Manager of the national systemawarding framework agreementsor other consolidated instruments

Co-ordinate training for public officialsin charge of public procurement

Establish policiesfor contracting authorities

Austria ● ● ❍ ❍

Belgium ❍ ● ❍ ❍

Canada ● ● ❍ ❍

Chile ❍ ● ● ●

Denmark ❍ ● ❍ ●

Estonia ❍ ● ❍ ❍

Finland ● ● ❍ ❍

France ● ● ● ❍

Germany ● ❍ ❍ ❍

Greece ● ● ● ●

Hungary ● ● ❍ ❍

Iceland ❍ ● ● ❍

Ireland ● ● ● ●

Italy ● ● ❍ ❍

Korea ● ● ● ❍

Luxembourg ● ❍ ❍ ❍

New Zealand ● ● ● ❍

Norway ● ❍ ❍ ❍

Poland ● ❍ ❍ ❍

Portugal ● ● ❍ ❍

Slovak Republic ● ❍ ❍ ❍

Slovenia ● ● ❍ ❍

Spain ● ● ❍ ●

Sweden ❍ ● ❍ ❍

Switzerland ● ● ● ●

Turkey ● ❍ ❍ ❍

United Kingdom ● ● ● ●

United States ● ● ● ●

OECD total● Yes 22 22 10 8❍ No 6 6 18 20

Brazil ● ❍ ● ●

Colombia ❍ ● ● ●

Source: OECD (2014) Survey on Public Procurement.1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933249104

GOVERNMENT AT A GLANCE 2015 © OECD 2015 143