[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ausman/v29y2004i2p147-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Auctions More Efficient Than Fixed Price Schemes When Bidders Learn?

Author

Listed:
  • Atakelty Hailu

    (School of Agricultural & Resource Economics, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009.)

  • Steven Schilizzi

    (School of Agricultural & Resource Economics, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009.)

Abstract
Auctions are increasingly being considered as a mechanism for allocating conservation contracts to private landowners. This interest is based on the widely held belief that competitive bidding helps minimize information rents. This study constructs an agent-based model to evaluate the long-term performance of conservation auctions under settings where bidders are allowed to learn from previous outcomes. The results clearly indicate that the efficiency benefits of one-shot auctions are quickly eroded under dynamic settings. Furthermore, the auction mechanism is not found to be superior to fixed payment schemes except when the latter involve the use of high prices.

Suggested Citation

  • Atakelty Hailu & Steven Schilizzi, 2004. "Are Auctions More Efficient Than Fixed Price Schemes When Bidders Learn?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 29(2), pages 147-168, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:29:y:2004:i:2:p:147-168
    DOI: 10.1177/031289620402900201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/031289620402900201
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/031289620402900201?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Balmann, Alfons & Happe, Kathrin & Kellermann, Konrad & Kleingarn, Anne, 2001. "Adjustment Costs Of Agri-Environmental Policy Switchings - A Multi-Agent Approach," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20506, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Hausch, Donald B & Li, Lode, 1993. "A Common Value Auction Model with Endogenous Entry and Information Acquisition," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 315-334, April.
    3. Jane Black & David de Meza, 1992. "Systematic Price Differences Between Successive Auctionsare no Anomaly," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(4), pages 607-628, December.
    4. Stoneham, Gary & Chaudhri, Vivek & Ha, Arthur & Strappazzon, Loris, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1-24.
    5. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata & Duke, Charlotte, 2003. "A laboratory study of auctions for reducing non-point source pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 446-471, November.
    6. Pingle, Mark & Tesfatsion, Leigh, 2001. "Non-Employment Benefits and the Evolution of Worker-Employer Cooperation: Experiments with Real and Computational Agents," ISU General Staff Papers 200106010700001053, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Hailu, Atakelty & Schilizzi, Steven, 2003. "Investigating the performance of market-based instruments for resource conservation: the contribution of agent-based modelling," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57883, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. James Nicolaisen & Valentin Petrov & Leigh Tesfatsion, 2000. "Market Power and Efficiency in a Computational Electricity Market with Discriminatory Double-Auction Pricing," Computational Economics 0004005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Roth, Alvin E. & Erev, Ido, 1995. "Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 164-212.
    10. Berger, Thomas, 2001. "Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: a simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes and policy analysis," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 245-260, September.
    11. Bower, John & Bunn, Derek, 2001. "Experimental analysis of the efficiency of uniform-price versus discriminatory auctions in the England and Wales electricity market," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(3-4), pages 561-592, March.
    12. Tesfatsion, Leigh S., 2002. "Agent-Based Computational Economics: Growing Economies from the Bottom Up," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5075, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Mauro Gallegati & Alan Kirman (ed.), 1999. "Beyond the Representative Agent," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1375.
    14. Gary Stoneham & Vivek Chaudhri & Arthur Ha & Loris Strappazzon, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria's BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 477-500, December.
    15. Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann & Carel P. C. M. Van der Hamsvoort, 1998. "Auctions as a Means of Creating a Market for Public Goods from Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 334-345, September.
    16. Joshua M. Epstein & Robert L. Axtell, 1996. "Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550253, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hailu, Atakelty & Schilizzi, Steven, 2003. "Investigating the performance of market-based instruments for resource conservation: the contribution of agent-based modelling," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57883, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Leigh Tesfatsion, 2002. "Agent-Based Computational Economics," Computational Economics 0203001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Aug 2002.
    3. Atakelty Hailu & Sophie Thoyer, 2005. "Multi-Unit Auctions to Allocate Water Scarcity Simulating Bidding Behaviour with Agent Based Models," Others 0512012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Atakelty Hailu & Sophie Thoyer, 2010. "What Format for Multi-Unit Multiple-Bid Auctions?," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 189-209, March.
    5. Atakelty Hailu & Sophie Thoyer, 2007. "Designing Multi‐unit Multiple Bid Auctions: An Agent‐based Computational Model of Uniform, Discriminatory and Generalised Vickrey Auctions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(s1), pages 57-72, September.
    6. Krishna Pant, 2015. "Uniform-Price Reverse Auction for Estimating the Costs of Reducing Open-Field Burning of Rice Residue in Nepal," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 567-581, November.
    7. Valle, Haydn & Capon, Timothy & Harris, Michael & Reeson, Andrew, 2012. "Coordination and Strategic Behaviour in Landscape Auctions," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124466, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Pengfei Liu, 2021. "Balancing Cost Effectiveness and Incentive Properties in Conservation Auctions: Experimental Evidence from Three Multi-award Reverse Auction Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(3), pages 417-451, March.
    9. Duffy, John, 2006. "Agent-Based Models and Human Subject Experiments," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 949-1011, Elsevier.
    10. John Rolfe & Jill Windle & Juliana McCosker, 2009. "Testing and Implementing the Use of Multiple Bidding Rounds in Conservation Auctions: A Case Study Application," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 287-303, September.
    11. Weidlich, Anke & Veit, Daniel, 2008. "A critical survey of agent-based wholesale electricity market models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1728-1759, July.
    12. John Rolfe & Romy Greiner & Jill Windle & Atakelty Hailu, 2011. "Testing for allocation efficiencies in water quality tenders across catchments, industries and pollutants: a north Queensland case study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(4), pages 518-536, October.
    13. Bruno Wichmann & Peter Boxall & Scott Wilson & Orsolya Pergery, 2017. "Auctioning Risky Conservation Contracts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1111-1144, December.
    14. Comerford, Emma & Binney, Jim, 2006. "Lessons learned from the Queensland Vegetation Incentives Program - applying auction theory to vegetation protection," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174101, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Sensfuß, Frank & Ragwitz, Mario & Genoese, Massimo & Möst, Dominik, 2007. "Agent-based simulation of electricity markets: a literature review," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S5/2007, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    16. Toho Hien & Raphaële Preget & Mabel Tidball, 2019. "Les enchères de contrats agroenvironnementaux : comparaison expérimentale entre contrainte d’objectif et contrainte de budget," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02378412, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    17. Atakelty Hailu & Sophie Thoyer, 2006. "Multi-unit auction format design," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 1(2), pages 129-146, November.
    18. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    19. Schilizzi, Steven & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2009. "Predicting the performance of conservation tenders when information on bidders's costs is limited," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48171, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Gaivoronskaia, E. & Tsyplakov, A., 2018. "Using a Modified Erev-Roth Algorithm in an Agent-Based Electricity Market Model," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 39(3), pages 55-83.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ausman:v:29:y:2004:i:2:p:147-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agsm.edu.au .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.