Priemus, H (2004) Dutch contracting fraud and governance issues. Building Research & Information, 32(4), pp. 306-312. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Building companies in the Netherlands used a clandestine sharing of the markets. These illegal actions have resulted in increased construction prices in the tender phase as well as false invoicing and fiscal statements. The irregular practices were precipitated by the structure of the building industry, inadequate governance policies and enforcement. Recommendations are made for government policy to promote better institutional frameworks within public-sector client organizations and for creative competition based on wider selection criteria.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | business culture; business systems; cartels; collusion; contracting systems; contractors; industry reform; price-ringing; public-sector procurement; the Netherlands |
| Index terms: | competition, building industry, government policy, selection criteria, markets, enforcement, governance, fraud, business culture, industry reform, collusion, Netherlands, public-sector client |
| Subjects: | health safety and environment, Geography, economic concepts, tendering, industry analysis, professional ethics, sociology, market analysis, business, economic analysis, public policy |
| Topics: | Governance, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Legal Issues |
| 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