[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kch/wpaper/sdes-2015-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Which performs better under a trader setting, double auction or uniform price auction?

Author

Listed:
  • Koji Kotani

    (School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology)

  • Kenta Tanaka

    (Faculty of Economics, Musashi University)

  • Shunsuke Managi

    (Departments of Urban and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Kyushu University)

Abstract
A marketable permit system (MPS) has been suggested as solutions to environmental problems. Whereas properties of MPSs in non-trader settings (each player becomes either a seller or a buyer) are well-documented, little is explored about how MPSs perform in trader settings (each player can be both a seller and a buyer). We instituted two auctions of trader settings in MPS experiments: double auction (DA) and uniform price auction (UPA), obtaining the following results: UPAs are more efficient and generate more stable prices than DAs; UPAs induce subjects to more truthfully reveal information about abatement costs for emissions; and a considerable proportion of trades in DAs consist of speculation. Thus, UPAs are likely to work better than DAs in trader settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Koji Kotani & Kenta Tanaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2015. "Which performs better under a trader setting, double auction or uniform price auction?," Working Papers SDES-2015-17, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised May 2015.
    • Handle: RePEc:kch:wpaper:sdes-2015-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.souken.kochi-tech.ac.jp/seido/wp/SDES-2015-17.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jamison, Julian C. & Plott, Charles R., 1997. "Costly offers and the equilibration properties of the multiple unit double auction under conditions of unpredictable shifts of demand and supply," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 591-612, April.
    2. Lei, Vivian & Noussair, Charles N & Plott, Charles R, 2001. "Nonspeculative Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets: Lack of Common Knowledge of Rationality vs. Actual Irrationality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 831-859, July.
    3. R. Andrew Muller & Stuart Mestelman, 1998. "What have we learned from emissions trading experiments?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4-5), pages 225-238.
    4. Robert W. Hahn & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 267-294.
    5. Myagkov, Mikhail & Plott, Charles R, 1997. "Exchange Economies and Loss Exposure: Experiments Exploring Prospect Theory and Competitive Equilibria in Market Environments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 801-828, December.
    6. Cason, Timothy N. & Plott, Charles R., 1996. "EPA's New Emissions Trading Mechanism: A Laboratory Evaluation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 133-160, March.
    7. Timothy N. Cason & Lata Gangadharan, 2005. "A Laboratory Comparison of Uniform and Discriminative Price Auctions for Reducing Non-point Source Pollution," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    8. Ledyard, John O. & Szakaly-Moore, Kristin, 1994. "Designing organizations for trading pollution rights," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 167-196, October.
    9. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata & Duke, Charlotte, 2003. "Market power in tradable emission markets: a laboratory testbed for emission trading in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 469-491, October.
    10. Cason, Timothy N., 2010. "What Can Laboratory Experiments Teach Us About Emissions Permit Market Design?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 151-161, April.
    11. Shiller, Robert J, 1981. "Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by Subsequent Changes in Dividends?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 421-436, June.
    12. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    13. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata, 2006. "Emissions variability in tradable permit markets with imperfect enforcement and banking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 199-216, October.
    14. Smith, Vernon L, et al, 1982. "Competitive Market Institutions: Double Auctions vs. Sealed Bid-Offer Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 58-77, March.
    15. Charles R. Plott & Kirill Pogorelskiy, 2017. "Call Market Experiments: Efficiency and Price Discovery through Multiple Calls and Emergent Newton Adjustments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 1-41, November.
    16. Plott, Charles R. & Gray, Peter, 1990. "The multiple unit double auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 245-258, March.
    17. Robert Godby, 2002. "Market Power in Laboratory Emission Permit Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(3), pages 279-318, November.
    18. Charles N. Noussair & Charles R. Plott & Raymond G. Riezman, 2013. "An Experimental Investigation of the Patterns of International Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Raymond Riezman (ed.), International Trade Agreements and Political Economy, chapter 17, pages 299-328, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Williams, Arlington W, 1980. "Computerized Double-Auction Markets: Some Initial Experimental Results," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 235-258, July.
    20. Timothy Cason & Daniel Friedman, 1999. "Learning in a Laboratory Market with Random Supply and Demand," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 77-98, August.
    21. Douglas D. Davis & Charles A. Holt, 1992. "Introduction to Experimental Economics," Introductory Chapters, in: Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press.
    22. Lutz Kilian & Daniel P. Murphy, 2014. "The Role Of Inventories And Speculative Trading In The Global Market For Crude Oil," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(3), pages 454-478, April.
    23. Maureen Kilkenny, 2000. "A Classroom Experiment about Tradable Permits," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 586-606.
    24. Plott, Charles R, 1983. "Externalities and Corrective Policies in Experimental Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 93(369), pages 106-127, March.
    25. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Karen Palmer & William Shobe & Dallas Burtraw, 2010. "An Experimental Study of Auctions Versus Grandfathering to Assign Pollution Permits," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(2-3), pages 514-525, 04-05.
    26. Hahn, Robert W, 1989. "Economic Prescriptions for Environmental Problems: How the Patient Followed the Doctor's Orders," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 95-114, Spring.
    27. Van Boening, Mark V & Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1996. "Avoidable Cost: Ride a Double Auction Roller Coaster," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 461-477, June.
    28. Andrew Muller, R. & Mestelman, Stuart & Spraggon, John & Godby, Rob, 2002. "Can Double Auctions Control Monopoly and Monopsony Power in Emissions Trading Markets?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 70-92, July.
    29. Smith, Vernon L & Suchanek, Gerry L & Williams, Arlington W, 1988. "Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1119-1151, September.
    30. Anderson, Christopher M. & Sutinen, Jon G., 2006. "The effect of initial lease periods on price discovery in laboratory tradable fishing allowance markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 164-180, October.
    31. Godby, Robert W. & Mestelman, Stuart & Muller, R. Andrew & Welland, J. Douglas, 1997. "Emissions Trading with Shares and Coupons when Control over Discharges Is Uncertain," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 359-381, March.
    32. Van Boening, Mark V. & Williams, Arlington W. & LaMaster, Shawn, 1993. "Price bubbles and crashes in experimental call markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-185.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katerina Sherstyuk & Krit Phankitnirundorn & Michael J. Roberts, 2021. "Randomized double auctions: gains from trade, trader roles, and price discovery," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1325-1364, December.
    2. Keisaku Higashida & Kenta Tanaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2024. "Who pays and who should pay for the uncertain conservation cost in biodiversity banking programs: evidence from a laboratory experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 22473-22498, September.
    3. Higashida, Keisaku & Tanaka, Kenta & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "The efficiency of conservation banking schemes with inter-regionally tradable credits and the role of mediators," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 175-186.
    4. Wang, Juan & Zheng, Junjun & Yu, Liukai & Goh, Mark & Tang, Yunying & Huang, Yongchao, 2023. "Distributed Reputation-Distance iterative auction system for Peer-To-Peer power trading," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 345(C).
    5. Timothy N. Cason & John K. Stranlund & Frans P. de Vries, 2022. "Investment Incentives in Tradable Emissions Markets with Price Floors Approach," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1331, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
    6. Xu, Shuang & Zhao, Yong & Li, Yuanzheng & Zhou, Yue, 2021. "An iterative uniform-price auction mechanism for peer-to-peer energy trading in a community microgrid," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    7. Tanaka, Kenta & Matsukawa, Isamu & Managi, Shunsuke, 2020. "An experimental investigation of bilateral oligopoly in emissions trading markets," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).

    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. Timilsina, Raja Rajendra & Kotani, Koji, 2017. "Evaluating the potential of marketable permits in a framed field experiment: Forest conservation in Nepal," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 25-37.
    2. Katerina Sherstyuk & Krit Phankitnirundorn & Michael J. Roberts, 2021. "Randomized double auctions: gains from trade, trader roles, and price discovery," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1325-1364, December.
    3. Higashida, Keisaku & Tanaka, Kenta & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "The efficiency of conservation banking schemes with inter-regionally tradable credits and the role of mediators," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 175-186.
    4. Requate, Till & Camacho-Cuena, Eva & Kean Siang, Ch'ng & Waichman, Israel, 2019. "Tell the truth or not? The montero mechanism for emissions control at work," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 133-152.
    5. Tanaka, Kenta & Higashida, Keisaku & Managi, Shunsuke, 2014. "A laboratory assessment of the choice of vessel size under individual transferable quota regimes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), July.
    6. Noussair, C.N. & van Soest, D.P., 2014. "Economic Experiments and Environmental Policy : A Review," Other publications TiSEM 5ccc4032-fc1e-453c-9a96-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Ortmann, Andreas, 2003. "Charles R. Plott's collected papers on the experimental foundations of economic and political science," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 555-575, August.
    8. Kristiana Hansen & Jonathan Kaplan & Stephan Kroll, 2014. "Valuing Options in Water Markets: A Laboratory Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(1), pages 59-80, January.
    9. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Till Requate & Israel Waichman, 2012. "Investment Incentives Under Emission Trading: An Experimental Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 229-249, October.
    10. Kai-Uwe Kuhn & Neslihan Uler, 2019. "Behavioral sources of the demand for carbon offsets: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(3), pages 676-704, September.
    11. Keisaku Higashida & Kenta Tanaka & Shunsuke Managi, 2024. "Who pays and who should pay for the uncertain conservation cost in biodiversity banking programs: evidence from a laboratory experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 22473-22498, September.
    12. Ghosh, Gaurav & Kwasnica, Anthony & Shortle, James, 2010. "A Laboratory Experiment to Compare Two Market Institutions for Emissions Trading," FCN Working Papers 18/2010, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    13. Tanaka, Kenta & Matsukawa, Isamu & Managi, Shunsuke, 2020. "An experimental investigation of bilateral oligopoly in emissions trading markets," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    14. Halim, Edward & Riyanto, Yohanes Eko & Roy, Nilanjan, 2016. "Price Dynamics and Consumption Smoothing in Experimental Asset Markets," MPRA Paper 71631, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Nuzzo, Simone & Morone, Andrea, 2017. "Asset markets in the lab: A literature review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 42-50.
    16. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    17. Cary Deck & Maroš Servátka & Steven Tucker, 2020. "Designing Call Auction Institutions to Eliminate Price Bubbles: Is English Dutch the Best?," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 225-236, June.
    18. Jones, Luke R. & Vossler, Christian A., 2014. "Experimental tests of water quality trading markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 449-462.
    19. Halim, Edward & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan, 2022. "Sharing idiosyncratic risk even though prices are “wrong”," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    20. Lata Gangadharan & Rachel Croson & Alex Farrell, 2013. "Investment decisions and emissions reductions: results from experiments in emissions trading," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 8, pages 233-264, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    marketable permits; economic experiments; double auction; uniform price auction; trader settings;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kch:wpaper:sdes-2015-17. 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: Sachiko Minami (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/smkocjp.html .

    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.