less visible in implementation terms, and which carry higher transaction costs are not being complied with. The division of contracts into lots, for example, requires knowledge of contract design as well as the ability to analyse the costs and benefits of using several small suppliers in preference to one large supplier. Findings: predictors of compliance The second phase of the analysis involves testing predictors of compliance. Twelve variables are included as part of a predictive model. There is no evidence of multi-collinearity among the variables, as indicated by the high tolerance and low VIF values (table 3). The model is significant: F (19, 325) = 4.556, p <.001 and explains 16.4% of the variance in compliance (Adjusted R Square = 16.4 R Square = .210). Four of the twelve variables are statistically significant. Three of these relate to individual characteristics of the public buyer: involvement in procurement, policy familiarity, and perceived importance of SME access. Each has a positive impact on compliance. The fourth significant variable is organisation type. It is negatively related to policy compliance. None of the other eight variables are statistically significant. The standardised coefficients and significance levels for all twelve variables are listed in table 3. Indicated by effect size, involvement in procurement has the greatest positive impact on policy compliance. This is consistent with the prediction that increased involvement makes adherence to the institutional norms of public procurement more salient and career-relevant to public buyers. The assumption that compliance with policy presupposes a degree of familiarity is also supported. Likewise, public buyers that perceive public procurement as having a key role to play in supporting SMEs are more likely to comply with SME-friendly policy. Contrary to hypothesised predictions, neither experience, qualifications nor training are found to be significant in predicting compliance. The relevance of these attributes in contributing to effective
Caldwell N, Walker H, Harland C, Knight L, Zheng J, and Wakeley T, 2005, “Promoting competitive markets: the role of public procurement” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 11 242-51 Clark M, Moutray C, 2004, “The future of small businesses in the U.S. federal Government marketplace” Journal of Public Procurement 4 450-470 Coggburn J, Rahm D, 2005, “Environmentally preferable purchasing: who is doing what in the United States?” Journal of Public Procurement 5 23-53 D’aunno T, Sutton R, Price R, 1991, “Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: a study of drug abuse treatment units” Academy of Management Journal 34 636-661 de Boer L, Telgen J, 1998, “Purchasing practice in Dutch municipalities” International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 34 31-37 Department of Finance, 2010, Facilitating SME Participation in Public Procurement (Department of Finance, Dublin) http://www.etenders.gov.ie/policyandlegislation Dillman D, 2007, Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2nd edition (Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.) Di Maggio P, 1988, “Interest and agency in institutional theory”, in Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment Ed L Zucker (Ballinger, MA) pp 3-22 Dowling J, Pfeffer J, 1975, “Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behaviour” The Pacific Sociological Review 18 122-136 EIM, 2011, Do SMEs create more and better jobs? (EIM Business and Policy Research, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands) Erridge A, 2007, “Public procurement, public value and the Northern Ireland unemployment pilot project” Public Administration 85 1023-1043 European Commission, 2008a, Small Business Act for Europe (European Commission, Brussels) European Commission, 2008b, European Code of Best Practices Facilitating Access by SMEs to Public Procurement Contracts (European Commission, Brussels) European Commission, 2013, Small Business Fact Sheet Ireland 2012/2013 (European Commission, Brussels) Fee R, Erridge A, Hennigan S, 2002, “SMEs and government purchasing in Northern Ireland” European Business Review 14 326-334
Karjalainen K, Kemppainen K, E M van Raaij, 2009, “Non-compliant work behaviour in purchasing: an exploration of reasons behind maverick buying” Journal of Business Ethics 85 245-261 Kidalov M, Snider K, 2011, “U.S. and European public procurement policies for small and medium sized enterprises (SME): a comparative perspective” Business and Politics 13 1-41. Krause R M, 2011, “Symbolic or substantive policy? Measuring the extent of local commitment to climate protection” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29 46 - 62 Labour Party, 2013, An enterprising nation: the final report of the Small Business Taskforce (Labour Party, London) Loader K, 2005, “Supporting SMEs through government purchasing activity” The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 6 17-26 Loader K, 2007, “The challenge of competitive procurement: value for money versus small business support” Public Money and Management 27 307-314 Loader K, 2013, “Is public procurement a successful small business policy support? A review of the evidence” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31 39-55 Martin S, Hartley K, Cox A, 1999, “Public procurement directives in the European Union: a study of local authority purchasing” Public Administration 77 387-406 Mason C, 2009, “Policy as a focus for small business research” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27 191 – 194 McCrudden C, 2007, Buying Social Justice: Equality, Government, and Legal Change (Oxford University Press, Oxford) McCue C P, Gianakis G A, 2001, “Public purchasing: who’s minding the store?” Journal of Public Procurement 1 71-95 MacManus S, 1991, “Why businesses are reluctant to sell to government” Public Administration Review 51 328-344 Meyer J, Rowan B, 1977, “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony” American Journal of Sociology 83 340-363 Meyer J, 1979, “Organizational structure as signaling” The Pacific Sociological Review 22 Morgan K, 2008, “Greening the realm: sustainable food chains and the public plate” Regional Studies 42 1237-1250
Murray G, 2009, “Improving the validity of public procurement research” International Journal of Public Sector Management 22 91-103 Murray G, 2011, “Third sector commissioning and English local government procurement”, Public Money and Management 31 279-286 Murray G, 2012, “Revolutionizing or recycling public procurement policy in the UK?” Public Money and Management 32 3 165-167 Mwakibinga F A, Buvik A, 2013, “An empirical analysis of coercive means of enforcing compliance in public procurement” Journal of Public Procurement 13 243-273 National Institute of Government Purchasing (NIGP), 2001, NIGP Survey of Green Procurement Initiatives (NIGP, VA) Nilsson M, Eklund M, Tyskeng S, 2009, “Environmental integration and policy implementation: competing governance modes in waste management decision making” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27 1-18 OECD, 2013, Government at a Glance 2013: Procurement Data (OECD, Paris) Oliver C, 1991, “Strategic responses to institutional processes” Academy of Management Review 16 145-179 Pickernell D, Kay A, Packham G, Miller C, 2011, “Competing agendas in public procurement: an empirical analysis of opportunities and limits in the UK for SMEs” Environment & Planning C: Government and Policy 29 641-658 Pitt D, 2010, “The impact of internal and external characteristics on the adoption of climate mitigation policies by US municipalities” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 28 851-871 Purchase S, Goh T, Dooley K, 2009, “Supplier perceived value: differences between and business-to-government relationships” Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 15 3-11 Preuss L, 2007, “Buying into our future: sustainability initiatives in local government procurement” Business Strategy and the Environment 16 354-365 Preuss L, 2011, “On the contribution of public procurement to entrepreneurship and small business policy” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: An International Journal 23 Qiao Y, Thai KV, Cummings G, 2009, “State and local procurement preferences: a survey” Journal of Public Procurement 9 371-410
250+ 11 Structural configuration of procurement function Procurement is centralised No Yes 12 Operational management of procurement Procurement is category managed No Yes Respondent characteristics Respondent % Occupational group Procurement Manager/asst. principal/department head Executive officer/financial officer Profession-specific (incl. engineering, IT & education) Other (incl. facilities management & project management) 33 14.9 17 26.3 8.8 Involvement in procurement Procurement is a minor part of work role Procurement is a major part of work role Dedicated buyer 44 43.2 12.8 Procurement experience 0-5 years 6-10 years 11+ years 28.4 29.6 42 Procurement qualification Yes No 29.4 70.6 Procurement training Undertook procurement training within last 3 years Did not undertake procurement training within last 3 years 53.7 46.3 Policy familiarity Familiar with SME-friendly procurement policy Not familiar with SME-friendly procurement policy 71.9 28.1 Organisation type Central government Local government State agency Semi-state/utility Education institution Other (incl. external consultants) 23.7 23.7 19.1 7.4 12.3 13.8 Geographic scope of operations Local level Regional level National level 38.2 13.4 48.4 Organisational size