IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/117161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the Use of Experimental Auctions in Africa: Theory and Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Morawetz, Ulrich B.
  • De Groote, Hugo
  • Kimenju, Simon Chege

Abstract

Experimental auctions have not been widely used in Africa. However, auctions are important tools for evaluating new products and technologies. To increase the quality of these experiments, we explore an alternative first-price bidding mechanism that is more similar to African market exchanges and we analyze factors likely to affect bidding. Experiments with African consumers show that the proposed first-price mechanism has no advantage over conventional second-price mechanisms. Results show high and significant cash-in-hand, experimenter, and time of day effects in main rounds, and significant ordering effects in test rounds. These effects need to be carefully considered when applying the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism in Africa.

Suggested Citation

  • Morawetz, Ulrich B. & De Groote, Hugo & Kimenju, Simon Chege, 2011. "Improving the Use of Experimental Auctions in Africa: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), August.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:117161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/117161
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elizabeth Hoffman & Dale J. Menkhaus & Dipankar Chakravarti & Ray A. Field & Glen D. Whipple, 1993. "Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 318-338.
    2. Hugo De Groote & Simon Chege Kimenju & Ulrich B. Morawetz, 2011. "Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    3. David Dickinson & Ronald Oaxaca, 2005. "The Equivalence of Panel Data Estimators under Orthogonal Experimental Design," Working Papers 05-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    4. Irwin, Julie R, et al, 1998. "Payoff Dominance vs. Cognitive Transparency in Decision Making," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(2), pages 272-285, April.
    5. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    6. Ehmke, Mariah D. & Shogren, Jason F., 2009. "Experimental methods for environment and development economics," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(04), pages 419-456, August.
    7. Lusk, Jayson L. & Daniel, M. Scott & Mark, Darrell R. & Lusk, Christine L., 2001. "Alternative Calibration And Auction Institutions For Predicting Consumer Willingess To Pay For Nongenetically Modified Corn Chips," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), July.
    8. Simon Chege Kimenju & Hugo De Groote, 2008. "Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 35-46, January.
    9. Maria L. Loureiro & Wendy J. Umberger & Susan Hine, 2003. "Testing the initial endowment effect in experimental auctions," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(5), pages 271-275, April.
    10. Alpaslan Akay & Peter Martinsson & Haileselassie Medhin & Stefan Trautmann, 2012. "Attitudes toward uncertainty among the poor: an experiment in rural Ethiopia," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 453-464, September.
    11. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2006. "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 121(2), pages 747-782.
    12. Kagel, John H & Harstad, Ronald M & Levin, Dan, 1987. "Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(6), pages 1275-1304, November.
    13. Zeileis, Achim, 2004. "Econometric Computing with HC and HAC Covariance Matrix Estimators," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 11(i10).
    14. Croissant, Yves & Millo, Giovanni, 2008. "Panel Data Econometrics in R: The plm Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 27(i02).
    15. De Groote, Hugo & Tomlins, Keith & Haleegoah, Joyce & Awool, Manfred & Frimpong, Benedicta & Banerji, Abijit & Chowdury, Shyamal K. & Meenakshi, J.V., 2010. "Assessing rural consumers’ WTP for orange, biofortified maize in Ghana with experimental auctions and a simulated radio message," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 96197, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE);Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA).
    16. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    17. Kiria, Christine G. & Vermeulen, Hester & De Groote, Hugo, 2010. "Sensory Evaluation and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Quality Protein Maize (QPM) using Experimental Auctions in Rural Tanzania," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 96417, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE);Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA).
    18. Jay R. Corrigan & Matthew C. Rousu, 2006. "The Effect of Initial Endowments in Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 448-457.
    19. Muzhingi, Tawanda & Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Malaba, Lucie C. & Banziger, Marianne, 2008. "Consumer acceptability of yellow maize products in Zimbabwe," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 352-361, August.
    20. T.S. Jayne & Lawrence Rubey & Frank Lupi & David Tschirley & Michael T. Weber, 1996. "Estimating Consumer Response to Food Market Reform Using Stated Preference Data: Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 820-824.
    21. Ehmke, Mariah & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2010. "Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-45, January.
    22. Dale Whittington, 2002. "Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 323-367, June.
    23. K hlin, Gunnar, 2001. "Contingent valuation in project planning and evaluation: the case of social forestry in Orissa, India," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(02), pages 237-258, May.
    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. Alphonce, Roselyne & Alfnes, Frode, 2015. "Eliciting Consumer WTP for Food Characteristics in a Developing Context: Comparison of four methods in a field experiment," Working Paper Series 01-2015, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, School of Economics and Business.
    2. Adewale Oparinde & Abhijit Banerji & Ekin Birol & Paul Ilona, 2016. "Information and consumer willingness to pay for biofortified yellow cassava: evidence from experimental auctions in Nigeria," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 215-233, March.
    3. Teresa Briz & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr, 2014. "Detecting false positives in experimental auctions: A case study of projection bias in food consumption," Working Papers 2014-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Hugo Groote & Clare Narrod & Simon C. Kimenju & Charles Bett & Rosemarie P. B. Scott & Marites M. Tiongco & Zachary M. Gitonga, 2016. "Measuring rural consumers’ willingness to pay for quality labels using experimental auctions: the case of aflatoxin-free maize in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 33-45, January.
    5. De Groote, Hugo & Kariuki, Sarah & Traore, Djibril & Taylor, John R.N. & Mario, Ferruzi & Hamaker, Bruce, "undated". "Measuring consumers’ interest in instant fortified millet products - a field experiment in Touba, Senegal," 2016 AAAE Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246973, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    6. Teresa Briz & Andreas Drichoutis & Lisa House, 2015. "Examining projection bias in experimental auctions: the role of hunger and immediate gratification," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Katherine P. Adams & Travis J. Lybbert & Stephen A. Vosti & Emmanuel Ayifah, 2016. "Using an economic experiment to estimate willingness-to-pay for a new maternal nutrient supplement in Ghana," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(5), pages 581-595, September.
    8. Banerji, Abhijit & Birol, Ekin & Karandikar, Bhushana & Rampal, Jeevant, 2016. "Information, branding, certification, and consumer willingness to pay for high-iron pearl millet: Evidence from experimental auctions in Maharashtra, India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 133-141.

    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:ags:jlaare:117161. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.