Impact Mechanism in Circular Public Procurement: Empirical Insights from Traditional Public Procurement and Public Private Partnership in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circular Public Procurement (CPP) serves as a policy instrument aimed at advancing circular economy (CE) objectives through public contracting. Despite its growing adoption, the mechanisms underlying its implementation across different procurement types remain insufficiently understood. This study examines the impact of CE policies in both traditional public procurement (TPP) and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects in China. Using data from 45,131 TPP projects and 6,245 PPP projects (2015-2021), a probit regression model analyzes the effects of internal factors, including contract value, procurement method, sector, industry, and contract period, alongside external factors such as attention allocation and marketization. The findings indicate that higher contract values enhance CE policy implementation in TPP, while in PPP projects, larger contract values diminish policy effectiveness by increasing financing pressures. In PPP projects, longer contract periods may alleviate these pressures and facilitate policy implementation. Procurement methods shape policy outcomes differently across procurement types. Competitive bidding strengthens the implementation of CE policies in TPP, while negotiation-based approaches align sustainability goals with financing constraints in PPP projects. Sector- and industry-specific dynamics further influence policy implementation, suggesting that engineering procurement in TPP and transportation and agriculture/forestry PPP projects require more focused attention on CE policy implementation. On the other hand, attention allocation and marketization positively influence policy outcomes by strengthening institutional support and fostering incentives for environmental compliance. Explicit explanations of these relations are provided. This study highlights several key measures to improve the effectiveness of CE policies in China’s public procurement system, including enhancing the legal framework, allocating government attention to PPP projects, promoting market-oriented reforms, and strengthening policy implementation in specific sectors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".