CLThe article discusses the inefficiency of public spending by the state, highlighting that public contracts often cost twice as much as private sector equivalents due to risks associated with delays and uncertainties. It explains that public institutions require contractors to account for factors like extended timelines, modifications, and bureaucratic delays, which are not typically present in private contracts. The author argues that these additional costs are not necessarily due to corruption but rather the inherent risks of public administration. To improve efficiency, the article suggests implementing effective deadlines and acknowledging the higher costs caused by administrative delays, which would allow for more competitive bids and lower prices.
Bias read (Center): While the article critiques public spending practices, it does not take a clear ideological stance. Instead, it presents a balanced argument based on economic principles and contractual risk management. The tone remains objective, focusing on systemic issues rather than partisan blame. The author is
