This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

An assessment of four popular auction mechanisms in the siting of NIMBY facilities: some experimental evidence

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Euston Quah
Jongsay Yong

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The issue of locating locally unfriendly but socially beneficial facilities such as landfills and power stations is an important public policy concern in many countries. Local residents in the area where such facilities are to be located tend to exhibit strong opposition, no doubt due to the asymmetric distribution of the costs and benefits of such not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) facilities. A potentially useful mechanism for the siting of such facilities is by compensation auctions, which attempt to incorporate the market mechanism into the decision making process. In such auctions, communities name the compensation they require to host such facilities, and the community demanding the least amount of compensation gets to host the facility. This research attempts to evaluate the performance of such compensation auctions using laboratory exepriments. Four popular auction formats are evaluated: first- and second-price and all-pay first-and second-price sealed-bid auctions. The latter two formats correspond to the compensation auctions with penalty payments proposed by Kunreuther and Kleindorfer (1986) and Quah and Tan (1998), who claim that these auctions are more efficient as they restrains strategic (or over) bidding. Our results, however, contradict this claim. We show that the first-and second-price auctions without penalty payments are in fact more efficient, in that they tend to minimize social costs, and truthful bidding is more likely.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/00036840600758509&magic=repec&7C&7C8674ECAB8BB840C6AD35DC6213A474B5
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Taylor and Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.

Volume (Year): 40 (2008)
Issue (Month): 7 ()
Pages: 841-852
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:40:y:2008:i:7:p:841-852

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/routledge/00036846.html

Order Information:
Web: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/subscription.html

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All full texts are decentralized with the publishers, none reside on this server, thus making it possible to offer this service for free to all parties.

This page was last updated on 2010-1-1.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.