IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/ecohse/202144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

2019 Crab Quota Auction: History, Evaluation, and Alternative Scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Dmitriy Ivanov

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia)

  • Nikita Kalinin

    (Saint Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia)

  • Alexander Nesterov

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia)

  • Ivan Susin

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia)

Abstract

Auctions have been celebrated as the best tool for efficient allocation of resources. Howe­ver, no auction is good for all circumstances and every case needs an individual treatment. In this paper, we study the 2019 Russian crab quota auction, which raised 142 BLN rubles and became the largest auction in Russian history. We describe the auction format and compare it to alternative formats both theoretically and empirically. The multi-item auction was separate (to compete for each of the 40 items participants needed to register to a separate unit-item auction and to pay a deposit) and sequential (biddingfor an item began only when bidding for the previous item was finished). As alternatives, we consider common auction (each participant registers for the number of items he wishes to buy and pays a corresponding deposit) and parallel auction (bidding for all items take place simultaneously and end only when bidding stops for each item). As comparison criteria we use (1) efficiency – items are allocated to those who value them most, (2) auctioneer's revenue, and (3) manipulability – participants' ability to win by using sophisticated strategies. (1) and (2) are standard comparison criteria, while (3) is new and we propose it as a new tool for assessing the auction's robustness against the participants' undesirable strategic behavior such as lobbying, espionage and collusion. To do that we first define so-called straightforward strategies – bidding up to one's value (like truth-telling in direct auctions), and then estimate the regret of using the straightforward strategy as opposed to using an optimal (sop­histicated) strategy. The higher the regret, the more manipulable is the auction. As a result, we recommend using the common parallel auction, which has a few advantages compared to separate sequential auction used in 2019: it is more efficient, less manipulable and more robust to mistakes in setting the reserve price.

Suggested Citation

  • Dmitriy Ivanov & Nikita Kalinin & Alexander Nesterov & Ivan Susin, 2021. "2019 Crab Quota Auction: History, Evaluation, and Alternative Scenarios," HSE Economic Journal, National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 25(4), pages 574-594.
  • Handle: RePEc:hig:ecohse:2021:4:4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ej.hse.ru/en/2021-25-4/547030678.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    resource auctions; auction theory; fisheries; efficiency; manipulabilty; modeling; regret;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery

    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:hig:ecohse:2021:4:4. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Editorial board or Editorial board (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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.