The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Risk of Corruption

Adan Silverio-Murillo  ·  Daniel Prudencio  ·  Jose Roberto Balmori-de-la-Miyar
Public Organization Review, 2024  ·  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-024-00765-1

Motivation

Governments around the world responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by sharply increasing public spending and, at the same time, relaxing accountability standards to accelerate procurement. This created a natural opportunity for corruption: larger budgets, faster decisions, and less scrutiny.

The standard expectation, reflected in policy debates and media coverage, was that healthcare institutions would be at the center of pandemic corruption. And there were reasons to believe this: healthcare was the fastest-growing expenditure category, procurement rules were explicitly relaxed for medical supplies, and high-profile cases of overpriced equipment surfaced quickly.

This paper asks a more precise question: did the pandemic measurably increase the risk of corruption in Mexican federal procurement, and if so, where?

Using monthly administrative data on 378,000 public contracts from 64 federal institutions over 2018 to 2020, the paper answers with a surprising finding: the increase in corruption risk was driven almost entirely by non-healthcare institutions, not healthcare ones.


Key Findings

Overall effect
+17%
The pandemic increased the share of contract value assigned through discretionary mechanisms by 17% relative to the pre-pandemic baseline.
Who drove it?
Non-health
The effect is fully driven by non-healthcare institutions (+23%). Healthcare institutions show no significant change, despite being at the center of the public debate.
How long did it last?
~4 months
The increase was temporary. Discretionary contracting peaked two months after the lockdown lifted and returned to pre-pandemic levels within six months.

The Measure: DCVB

The outcome variable is the Discrete-Contracts-Value-to-Budget (DCVB) ratio, defined for each institution in each month as:

\[\text{DCVB}_{im} = \frac{\text{Value of contracts assigned by discretion}_{im}}{\text{Total contract value}_{im}}\]

A higher DCVB means a greater share of public money bypassed competitive bidding. The paper uses DCVB as a proxy for corruption risk, not as direct evidence of fraud.

Why DCVB? In Mexico, public contracts can be assigned through three mechanisms: open public auctions, invitation-only auctions, and direct allocation. The law favors open auctions, but allows exceptions. A rising DCVB ratio means institutions are increasingly using their legal discretion to bypass competition, which opens the door to favoritism and rent-seeking.


The Counterintuitive Result

The rise in corruption risk is concentrated in non-healthcare institutions, institutions that received relatively less public attention and media scrutiny during the pandemic. Healthcare institutions, despite rapid spending increases and relaxed procurement rules, show no statistically significant change in their DCVB ratio.

This suggests that public scrutiny itself may be a corruption deterrent: the intense media and civil society monitoring of healthcare procurement during the pandemic may have constrained discretionary behavior precisely where it was most expected.


Study at a Glance

Feature Detail
Country Mexico
Period January 2018 to December 2020
Institutions 64 federal institutions (75% of federal procurement)
Contracts 378,000 public acquisitions
Data source CompraNet, systematized by IMCO
Outcome DCVB ratio (institution-month level)
Methods Difference-in-differences, event study
Pre-pandemic DCVB baseline 0.70 (70% of contract value assigned with discretion)

How to Navigate This Site