Bidding in Common Value Auctions: How the Commercial Construction Industry Corrects for the Winner's Curse
AbstractExperienced construction industry executives suffer from a winner's curse in laboratory common value auction markets (Dyer et al. [Dyer, D., J. H. Kagel, D. Levin. 1989. A comparison of naive and experienced bidders in common value offer auctions: Laboratory analysis. Econom. J. 99 108--115.]). This paper identifies essential differences between field environments and the economic theory underlying the laboratory markets that account for the executives' success in the field and a winner's curse in the lab. These are (1) industry-specific mechanisms which enable contractors to escape the winner's curse even when they bid too low, (2) learned, industry-specific evaluative processes which enable experienced contractors to avoid the winner's curse in the first place, and (3) important private value elements that underlie bidding. Also identified are a number of industry-specific bidding characteristics whose evolution can be explained using modern auction theory. Lessons are drawn regarding the use of experimental methods in economics.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.
Volume (Year): 42 (1996)
Issue (Month): 10 (October)
auctions; construction industry; winner's curse; field data; experiments;
Other versions of this item:
- Douglas Dyer & John Kagel, 1996. "Bidding in common value auctions: How the commercial construction industry corrects for the winner's curse," Framed Field Experiments 00144, The Field Experiments Website.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Levati, Maria Vittoria & Miettinen, Topi & Rai, Birendra, 2011.
"Context and interpretation in laboratory experiments: The case of reciprocity,"
Journal of Economic Psychology,
Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 846-856.
- Maria Vittoria Levati & Topi Miettinen & Birendra K. Rai, 2010. "Context and Interpretation in Laboratory Experiments: The Case of Reciprocity," Jena Economic Research Papers 2010-090, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
- João Adelino Ribeiro & Paulo Jorge Pereira & Elísio Brandão, 2013. "Volume Uncertainty in Construction Projects: a Real Options Approach," CEF.UP Working Papers 1309, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
- Fangcheng Tang & Weizhou Zhong & Shunfeng Song, 2006. "Tenders with Different Risk Preferences in Construction Industry," Working Papers 06-006, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Economics & University of Nevada, Reno , Department of Resource Economics.
- Alan Mehlenbacher, 2007. "Multiagent System Platform for Auction Simulations," Department Discussion Papers 0706, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
- Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2007.
"Naturally Occurring Markets and Exogenous Laboratory Experiments: A Case Study of the Winner's Curse,"
NBER Working Papers
13072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- GlennW. Harrison & JohnA. List, 2008. "Naturally Occurring Markets and Exogenous Laboratory Experiments: A Case Study of the Winner's Curse," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 822-843, 04.
- Glenn Harrison & John List, 2008. "Naturally occurring markets and exogenous laboratory experiments: A case study of the winner's curse," Framed Field Experiments 00266, The Field Experiments Website.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.