Cox, A and Furlong, P (1995) European procurement rules and national preference: Explaining the local sourcing of public works contracts in the EU in 1993. Journal of Construction Procurement, 1(2), pp. 87-99. ISSN 1358-9180
Abstract
This article assesses the impact of the procurement rules imposed after 1992 by the European Union on public works contracts. The general conclusion of the article is that, while the new rules, which were established in the late 1980s by the European Union, have considerably tightened up on the loopholes which had existed for public works contracts under the 1971 public works rules, there has not been - so far anyway - any significant change in the behaviour of national awarding bodies in the public sector, as far as public works contracts are concerned. This means that, while there has been some considerable change in the rules, the award of construction contracts is still predominantly in favour of construction firms located in the national country of origin. This leads us to conclude that, in this regard, 'the more things change. the more things remain the same'.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract, European Union, procurement, public sector |
| Index terms: | construction firm, preference, public sector, European Union, construction contract, public work |
| Subjects: | infrastructure engineering, decision-making and reasoning, physical geography and landforms, organization, contract type, administrative law |
| Topics: | Procurement, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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