Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
To fulfill their social role in capitalist societies, govern- However, these are a collection of disperse and sparse
ments must engage in market relationships. They must initiatives and by any means imply the existence of a
employ people, provide grants, regulate transactions coordinated and strong PPI policy in Brazil. In fact, it is
and, above all, purchase goods and services. The main the opposite case. Squeff and Holanda (2014) showed
goal of this purchase is to satisfy a certain demand, that the Brazilian federal government sells to the least
which can be ordinary, like cleaning services, or more innovative companies in the country. Then, considering
sophisticated, like sending a robot to Mars. In public all of the above, expecting public procurement impacts
procurement processes, governments usually try a on private innovation efforts is not rational, and this is
“the-cheaper-the-better” strategy. However, not always. the main hypothesis of this work.
In the era of “machines, platforms, and crowds” In order to understand the differences between type
(Mcafee and Brynjolfsson, 2017), research and develop- of procurer and type of procured goods and services,
ment (R&D) have been widely recognized as the main we conducted five exercises: with the general sample;
source of the most relevant innovations. Therefore, this contracts from the of Ministry of Health, Ministry of
paper aims to evaluate the impact of federal public Education and, Ministry of Defense. In addition, to nar-
procurement on business R&D efforts in the 2013- row down the analysis, we selected another subsample
2016 period regardless the participation in any public and tested the model with only high-tech suppliers.
procurement program (PPI).
Regardless of the sample type, there was no impact of
The main assumption is that public procurement public procurement on the technology efforts of sup-
has the power to create demand for innovations. In pliers (considering the technology intensity approach).
general, this can be done through the requirement of
innovation in purchase bids or in the preference for We were expecting these results for the total sample but
innovative suppliers. In either case, the central point is not for the Ministry of Health or the high-tech suppliers.
that governments can stimulate the quest for private The purchases of this ministry, for instance, are quite
innovation by creating and/or consolidating a market complex in terms of technology, then we expected some
for innovation. positive impact. In fact, between 2014 and 2018, the
most relevant (in terms of value) products purchased
We conducted a quasi-experiment in which we com- by this ministry were vaccines and medicines.
pared firms that sold to the federal government with
firms that did not. We do not evaluate the impact of However, we found an unexpected impact on
any specific PPI instrument. suppliers’ total personnel (PO). According to all models,
public procurement increases suppliers’ PO. This positive
In fact, as showed by Rauen (2016), the use of PPI in impact is higher in the purchases by the Ministry of
Brazil is more about protectionism and lobby than a
Defense and lower in the total sample. Nevertheless,
real innovation strategy. Taking into account the last
it is positive and statistically significant for all samples.
ten years, these are the main Brazilian government’s
initiatives regarding public procurement for innovation: For instance, high-tech suppliers’ PO increased
i) additional preference margin; ii) sustainable public 28% more than the PO of firms that did not negotiate
procurement; iii) Productive Development Partnerships with the federal government. This is quite surprising
(PDP) for healthcare products; and iv) some scarce considering that Brazil does not have a strong and
pre-commercial procurement processes. effective public procurement policy. These results point
Discussion Paper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REFERÊNCIAS
MCAFEE, A.; BRYNJOLFSSON, E. Machine, platform,
crowd: Harnessing Our Digital Future. New York: WW
Norton & Company, 2017.
RAUEN, A. T. Margens de preferência: limites à
avaliação de resultados e impactos. Brasília: Ipea,
2016. (Nota Técnica Diset, n. 26).
SQUEFF, S.; HOLANDA, F. O poder de compras
governamental como instrumento de desen-
volvimento tecnológico: análise do caso brasileiro.
Brasília: Ipea, 2014.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY