Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Is Subsidizing Inefficient Bidders Actually Costly?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Michael H. Rothkopf

    ()
    (Rutgers Business School and RUTCOR, Rutgers University, 640 Bartholomew Road, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8003)

  • Ronald M. Harstad

    ()
    (Rutgers Business School and RUTCOR, Rutgers University, 640 Bartholomew Road, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8003)

  • Yuhong Fu

    ()
    (Moody's, 96 Church Street, New York, New York 10007)

Abstract

A widespread practice, particularly in public-sector procurement and dispersal, is to subsidize a class of competitors believed to be at an economic disadvantage. Arguments for such policies vary, but they typically assume that benefits of subsidization must be large enough to outweigh a presumed economic cost of the subsidy. When disadvantaged competitors compete in auctions, the subsidy serves to make them more competitive rivals. Other bidders rationally respond by bidding more aggressively. We consider a model of procurement auctions and show that a policy of subsidizing inefficient competitors can lower expected project cost and also enhance economic efficiency. Some subsidy is generally better than no subsidy for a wide range of parameters.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.1.71.12748
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.

Volume (Year): 49 (2003)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Pages: 71-84

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:49:y:2003:i:1:p:71-84

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA
Phone: +1-443-757-3500
Fax: 443-757-3515
Email:
Web page: http://www.informs.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Auctions; Subsidies; Disadvantaged competitors; Affirmative action; Set-asides; Procurement costs;

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

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

Cited by:
  1. Alcalde, José & Matthias, Dahm, 2011. "Competition for Procurement Shares," QM&ET Working Papers 11-3, Universidad de Alicante, Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Teoría Económica.
  2. Bulow, Jeremy I & Klemperer, Paul, 2007. "When are Auctions Best?," CEPR Discussion Papers 6393, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  3. repec:dgr:uvatin:2012117 is not listed on IDEAS
  4. Marion, Justin, 2007. "Are bid preferences benign? The effect of small business subsidies in highway procurement auctions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1591-1624, August.
  5. Colucci, Domenico & Doni, Nicola & Valori, Vincenzo, 2012. "Preferential treatment in procurement auctions through information revelation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 883-886.
  6. Hu, Audrey & Offerman, Theo & Zou, Liang, 2011. "Premium auctions and risk preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(6), pages 2420-2439.
  7. Jeremy Bulow & Paul Klemperer, 2009. "Why Do Sellers (Usually) Prefer Auctions?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1544-75, September.
  8. Dahm, Matthias & Esteve, Patrícia,, 2013. "Affirmative Action through Extra Prizes," Working Papers 2072/222197, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
  9. Vincent A.C. van den Berg, 2013. "Tender Auctions with Existing Operators Bidding," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-117/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
  10. Lee, Joon-Suk, 2008. "Favoritism in asymmetric procurement auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1407-1424, November.
  11. Vincent van den Berg, 2012. "Advantaged Bidders in Franchise Auctions," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-117/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
  12. Pai, Mallesh M. & Vohra, Rakesh, 2014. "Optimal auctions with financially constrained buyers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 383-425.
  13. Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Tournas, Yanni, 2000. "In-House Competition, Organizational Slack and the Business Cycle," CEPR Discussion Papers 2557, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  14. repec:dgr:uvatin:2013033 is not listed on IDEAS

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:49:y:2003:i:1:p:71-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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