The government requires its suppliers to have certain internal information processes to reduce uncertainty about their ability to fulfill their commitments. I argue that these requirements improve suppliers' internal information, which leads to better external reporting. Using a dataset of U.S. government contracts, I find a positive relation between government contract awards and firms' external reporting quality. Consistent with procurement-related requirements driving this relation, I find that firms improve their external reporting when they begin contracting with the government, and that the magnitude of the improvement varies predictably with contract characteristics imposing greater requirements on contractors' internal information processes. Finally, I use the establishment of the Cost Accounting Standards Board in 1970 as a shock to contractors' internal information requirements, and find greater improvements in external reporting among firms subject to the CASB. Overall, these results suggest that the government as a customer contributes to shaping firms' information environments.

We examine how open procurement data affect the competitiveness of award procedures and the execution of government contracts. The European Union recently made its historical procurement notices available for bulk download in a cohesive and user‐friendly database. Comparing government contracts above and below EU procurement size thresholds, we find that, after the open data initiative, procurement officials are more likely to award treated contracts through open bidding. In cross‐sectional analyses, we document variation in the open bidding effect consistent with two underlying mechanisms: (1) increased scrutiny by NGOs and investigative journalists and (2) learning by national procurement regulators. However, treated contracts are also more likely to experience costly modifications because the shift to open bidding introduces rigidity that limits officials’ discretion in selecting suppliers based on private information. Overall, our evidence indicates that open procurement data promote competitive bidding but lead to contracts with weaker execution performance. These inferences also hold in an alternative open data setting.

This paper examines how credit rating levels affect municipal debt issuers’ disclosure decisions. Using exogenous upgrades in credit rating levels caused by the recalibration of Moody's municipal ratings scale in 2010, we find that upgraded municipalities significantly reduce their disclosure of required continuing financial information, relative to unaffected municipalities. Consistent with a reduction in debtholders’ demand for information driving these results, the reduction in disclosure is greater when municipal bonds are held by investors who relied more on disclosure ex ante. However, we also find that the reduction in disclosure does not manifest when issuers are monitored by underwriters with greater issuer‐specific expertise and when issuers are subject to direct regulatory enforcement through the receipt of federal funding. Overall, our results suggest that higher credit rating levels lower investor demand for disclosure in the municipal market, and highlight the role of underwriters and direct regulatory enforcement in maintaining disclosure levels when investor demand is low.