Long, W; Wang, X; Liang, Y and Ye, K (2023) Characteristics of collusive practices in bidding: Mixed methods study in China. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(6): 04023030, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Over the past decade, collusive bidding has become more complicated with the development of economies and computer technologies. Understanding the emerging characteristics of collusive bidding helps antitrust authorities advance countermeasures to mitigate such illegal business competition. This study extracted data from 2,007 court judgment documents in China through text mining techniques. Using two-dimensional factors (i.e., project- and colluder-related factors), we performed an effect size-based significance test to demonstrate the new features of collusive practices. The study found that the larger the project size, the more complex the collusive bidding process. In addition, frequent communication between those collusive bidders stemming from adjacent provinces boosts the similarity of collusive biddings between regions. Furthermore, the study disclosed that senior colluders are more intended for those challenging collusive practices. The findings shed some light on feature determination when developing intelligent collusion detectors and offer implications for preventing collusive bidding.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | China; collusive bidding; construction business; significance test; text mining |
| Index terms: | documents, bidder, judgment, mixed method, collusive bidding, mining, collusion, business competition, bidding, China |
| Subjects: | geotechnical engineering, tendering, data collection methods, economics, professional development, Geography, dispute resolution, bidding |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Procurement, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Legal Issues, Information Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here