IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v10y2022i19p3653-d934314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Game Theoretic Model of Struggle with Corruption in Auctions: Computer Simulation

Author

Listed:
  • Kirill Kozlov

    (I.I. Vorovich Institute for Mathematics, Mechanics and Computer Science, Southern Federal University, 344000 Rostov-on-Don, Russia)

  • Guennady Ougolnitsky

    (I.I. Vorovich Institute for Mathematics, Mechanics and Computer Science, Southern Federal University, 344000 Rostov-on-Don, Russia)

Abstract

There is a great deal of literature devoted to mathematical models of corruption, including corruption in auctions. However, the relationship between the seller and the auctioneer is not studied sufficiently. The research aim is to analyze such relations in a game theoretic setup. We built a difference game theoretic model in normal form that describes possible collusion between an auctioneer and participants of an auction. The auctioneer acts on behalf of a seller. The seller can control possible collusions by administrative and economic mechanisms. The probability of detection depends on audit cost. We consider four cases of absence/presence of the collusion and those of the audit. The model is investigated numerically by simulation modeling using an original method of qualitatively representative scenarios. Several conclusions are made: factors of corruption are low probability of detection, small penalty, and big corruption gain of the auctioneer.

Suggested Citation

  • Kirill Kozlov & Guennady Ougolnitsky, 2022. "A Game Theoretic Model of Struggle with Corruption in Auctions: Computer Simulation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-11, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:19:p:3653-:d:934314
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/19/3653/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/19/3653/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Athey & Kyle Bagwell & Chris Sanchirico, 2004. "Collusion and Price Rigidity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 71(2), pages 317-349.
    2. Aoyagi, Masaki, 2007. "Efficient collusion in repeated auctions with communication," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 61-92, May.
    3. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Arozamena, Leandro & Weinschelbaum, Federico, 2009. "The effect of corruption on bidding behavior in first-price auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 645-657, August.
    5. Burguet Roberto & Perry Martin K, 2007. "Bribery and Favoritism by Auctioneers in Sealed-Bid Auctions," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, June.
    6. Guennady Ougolnitsky, 2014. "Game theoretic formalization of the concept of sustainable development in the hierarchical control systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 220(1), pages 69-86, September.
    7. Benny Moldovanu & Manfred Tietzel, 1998. "Goethe's Second-Price Auction," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(4), pages 854-859, August.
    8. Celentani, Marco & Ganuza, Juan-Jose, 2002. "Corruption and competition in procurement," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1273-1303, July.
    9. Susan Athey & Jonathan Levin & Enrique Seira, 2011. "Comparing open and Sealed Bid Auctions: Evidence from Timber Auctions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(1), pages 207-257.
    10. Roberto Burguet & Yeon-Koo Che, 2004. "Competitive Procurement with Corruption," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 50-68, Spring.
    11. Rose-Ackerman, Susan, 1975. "The economics of corruption," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 187-203, February.
    12. V. N. Kolokoltsov & O. A. Malafeyev, 2017. "Mean-Field-Game Model of Corruption," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 34-47, March.
    13. Vassili N. Kolokoltsov, 2021. "Inspection—Corruption Game of Illegal Logging and Other Violations: Generalized Evolutionary Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-14, July.
    14. Mailath, George J. & Zemsky, Peter, 1991. "Collusion in second price auctions with heterogeneous bidders," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 467-486, November.
    15. Graham, Daniel A & Marshall, Robert C, 1987. "Collusive Bidder Behavior at Single-Object Second-Price and English Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(6), pages 1217-1239, December.
    16. Lengwiler, Yvan & Wolfstetter, Elmar, 2010. "Auctions and corruption: An analysis of bid rigging by a corrupt auctioneer," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1872-1892, October.
    17. Toke S. Aidt, 2003. "Economic analysis of corruption: a survey," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(491), pages 632-652, November.
    18. Arvind K. Jain, 2001. "Corruption: A Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 71-121, February.
    19. Laffont, Jean-Jacques & Tirole, Jean, 1991. "Auction design and favoritism," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 9-42, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lengwiler, Yvan & Wolfstetter, Elmar, 2010. "Auctions and corruption: An analysis of bid rigging by a corrupt auctioneer," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1872-1892, October.
    2. Roberto Burguet, 2017. "Procurement Design with Corruption," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 315-341, May.
    3. Lorentziadis, Panos L., 2016. "Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 347-371.
    4. Yvan Lengwiler & Elmar G. Wolfstetter, 2005. "Bid Rigging – An Analysis of Corruption in Auctions," CESifo Working Paper Series 1488, CESifo.
    5. Helene Mass & Nicolas Fugger & Vitali Gretschko & Achim Wambach, 2020. "Imitation Perfection—A Simple Rule to Prevent Discrimination in Procurement," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 189-245, August.
    6. Chiappinelli, Olga, 2020. "Political corruption in the execution of public contracts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 116-140.
    7. Vitali Gretschko & Achim Wambach, 2012. "Auctions vs. Negotiations: The Case of Favoritism," CESifo Working Paper Series 4045, CESifo.
    8. Huang, He & Li, Zhipeng, 2015. "Procurement auctions with ex-ante endogenous bribery," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 111-117.
    9. Nicolas Campos & Eduardo Engel & Ronald D. Fischer & Alexander Galetovic, 2019. "Renegotiations and corruption in infrastructure: The Odebrecht case," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0230, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    10. Arozamena, Leandro & Weinschelbaum, Federico, 2009. "The effect of corruption on bidding behavior in first-price auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 645-657, August.
    11. Menezes, Flavio M. & Monteiro, Paulo Klinger, 2006. "Corruption and auctions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 97-108, February.
    12. Roberto Burguet & Juan-José Ganuza & José García-Montalvo, 2016. "The Microeconomics of Corruption. A Review of Thirty Years of Research," Working Papers 908, Barcelona School of Economics.
    13. Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky, 2011. "Corruption and Collusion: Strategic Complements in Procurement," Chapters, in: Susan Rose-Ackerman & Tina Søreide (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Volume Two, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Fonseca-Mairena, María Haydée & Triossi, Matteo, 2019. "Incentives and implementation in marriage markets with externalities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    15. Xiaoshuai Fan & Ying‐Ju Chen & Christopher S. Tang, 2021. "To Bribe or Not in a Procurement Auction under Disparate Corruption Pressure," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(5), pages 1220-1245, May.
    16. Nicolas Jacquemet, 2005. "La corruption comme une imbrication de contrats : Une revue de la littérature microéconomique," Working Papers 2005-29, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    17. Ndiaye Cheikh Tidiane, 2019. "Corruption, Investment and Economic Growth in WAEMU Countries," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(4), pages 30-39, April.
    18. Chandel, Shivangi & Sarkar, Shubhro, 2023. "Corruption in multidimensional procurement auctions under asymmetry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    19. Þevket Alper Koç, 2008. "Effects Of Asymmetry On Ex Ante Corruption At Auctions," Bogazici Journal, Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Bogazici University, Department of Economics, vol. 22(1+2), pages 17-33.
    20. Ariane Lambert‐Mogiliansky & Konstantin Sonin, 2006. "Collusive Market Sharing and Corruption in Procurement," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 883-908, December.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:10:y:2022:i:19:p:3653-:d:934314. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.