Skip to content

AN-002: DiDiR firm and bid count effects

Intuition (plain-language)

Reopening an auction to non-SMEs mechanically adds bidders; the question is how many. Switched Group 65 gains roughly 18% more bidding firms right after the change, fading to about 10% as the control groups themselves finish rolling into SME-only. The fade reflects the controls moving, not the treatment effect vanishing.

Reduced-form motivation layer

The numbers below are from the v1–v4 reduced-form DiDiR pipeline (scripts/02_analysis.R + companions), which the v8 manuscript carries as motivation in §1 but does not headline. The canonical v8 result is the structural counterfactual decomposition — see AN-010 (decomposition) and AN-011 (welfare arithmetic).

Question

Does opening the auction to non-SMEs raise the number of participating firms and the number of valid bids in switched group 65? The reduced-form DiDiR identifies the open-vs-SME-only difference in bidder participation.

Design

  • Sample: all items (not restricted to completed) in the BEC parquet cache for the 6/12/18-month windows around March 2018.
  • Variation: same DiDiR as AN-001.
  • Specification: same DiDiR equation; outcomes are log firms and log valid bids.
  • Outcomes: log number of bidder firms; log number of valid bids.
  • Identification threats: secular trend in control groups' rollout of SME restrictions across other product groups — see Interpretation below.

Results

Window Base log firms PBU-FE log firms N
6m +0.1776*** (0.0079) +0.1821*** (0.0081) 261,450
12m +0.1495*** (0.0062) +0.1540*** (0.0063) 524,745
18m +0.0926*** (0.0059) +0.1004*** (0.0060) 773,263

Item FE; PBU FE in alternating columns; item-clustered SE. *** p<0.01.

Bid-count effects (table tab_validbids.tex) move in the same direction with similar magnitude attenuation across windows.

Output: output/tables/tab_participants.tex, output/tables/tab_validbids.tex.

Maps to the v8 first stage (Table 1)

This aggregate count is the net of two by-type moves that the v8 structural first stage (Table 1) reports separately. In the non-pharmaceutical structural sample, SME bidders rise from 0.94 to 1.87 per auction while non-SMEs fall from 2.68 to 1.50 (pharma: SME 0.55 → 1.22, non-SME 2.61 → 1.66). Open competition therefore fields more total bidders than the SME-only counterfactual — consistent with the positive reduced-form coefficient here. The reduced-form DiD cannot separate SME entry from non-SME removal; the structural decomposition does (AN-010).

Interpretation

The 6-month estimate implies ~22% more firms in switched group 65 under open competition; the 18-month estimate ~10%. The attenuation does not mean the policy effect weakened over time — it reflects the control groups' gradual SME restriction rollout. As the controls converged to SME-only-everywhere, the cross-group DiDiR contrast shrank mechanically.

The mechanical removal of non-SMEs from the eligible pool sets a floor on the firm-count effect: the post-period bidder count cannot fall below the pre-period count by more than the count of non-SMEs that participated in the pre-period. The 6-month estimate is probably the cleanest reading of the policy effect itself; the 18-month is the conservative cross-window benchmark.

Confidence: yellow. The direction is stable; the magnitudes are window-dependent in a known and interpretable way. The pre-treatment placebo on firm counts is significant (AN-004) but reflects the same secular trend rather than a group-65-specific confound.

Follow-ups

  • Type-decomposition of the firm-count response: how much is non-SME removal versus SME additional entry? The structural decomposition (AN-010) separates them; the DiDiR cannot.
  • Intensive vs extensive bid margin: are bid-count gains driven by more firms registering or by within-firm re-bidding? Pregão allows multiple bids per firm; a within-firm bid-count decomposition would expose strategic re-bidding.
  • Item-class heterogeneity: the firm-count response should be larger on items where non-SMEs were over-represented pre-policy.