IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v72y2005i1p42-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auction Markets for Evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Cary A. Deck
  • Bart J. Wilson

Abstract

When the value of a product or service is uncertain, outcomes can be inefficient. A market for evaluations can theoretically increase efficiency by voluntarily eliciting an evaluation that would otherwise not be provided. This paper uses a controlled laboratory experiment to test the performance of four market mechanisms to provide product evaluations. The mechanisms considered are derived from the oft studied uniform price sealed bid, discriminatory price sealed bid, English clock auction, and Dutch clock auction. Our results indicate for this nonrivalrous product that (i) each of these institutions improves social welfare and (ii) the performances of the four mechanisms are equivalent. This second point is particularly noteworthy given that differing behavior is routinely observed in traditional private value auctions.

Suggested Citation

  • Cary A. Deck & Bart J. Wilson, 2005. "Auction Markets for Evaluations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(1), pages 42-62, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:72:y:2005:i:1:p:42-62
    DOI: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.2005.tb00687.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2005.tb00687.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2005.tb00687.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isaac, R. Mark & Walker, James M., 1985. "Information and conspiracy in sealed bid auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 139-159, June.
    2. Paul Resnick & Christopher Avery & Richard Zeckhauser, 1999. "The Market for Evaluations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 564-584, June.
    3. Güth Werner & Königstein Manfred & Ivanova-Stenzel Radosveta & Strobel Martin, 2002. "Bid Functions in Auctions and Fair Division Games: Experimental Evidence," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 3(4), pages 461-484, December.
    4. Coppinger, Vicki M & Smith, Vernon L & Titus, Jon A, 1980. "Incentives and Behavior in English, Dutch and Sealed-Bid Auctions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Kagel, John H & Levin, Dan, 1993. "Independent Private Value Auctions: Bidder Behaviour in First-, Second- and Third-Price Auctions with Varying Numbers of Bidders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(419), pages 868-879, July.
    7. Cary A. Deck & Bart J. Wilson, 2003. "Automated Pricing Rules in Electronic Posted Offer Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(2), pages 208-223, April.
    8. Vernon L. Smith, 1994. "Economics in the Laboratory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 113-131, Winter.
    9. Charles J. Thomas & Bart J. Wilson, 2002. "A Comparison of Auctions and Multilateral Negotiations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(1), pages 140-155, Spring.
    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. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Salmon, Timothy C., 2008. "Revenue equivalence revisited," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 171-192, September.
    2. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Sonsino, Doron, 2004. "Comparative study of one-bid versus two-bid auctions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 561-583, August.
    3. Neugebauer, Tibor & Selten, Reinhard, 2006. "Individual behavior of first-price auctions: The importance of information feedback in computerized experimental markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 183-204, January.
    4. Kirchkamp, O. & Reiss, J.P. & Sadrieh, A., 2008. "A pure variation of risk in private-value auctions," Research Memorandum 050, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    5. Cason, Timothy N. & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Sjostrom, Tomas & Yamato, Takehiko, 2006. "Secure implementation experiments: Do strategy-proof mechanisms really work?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 206-235, November.
    6. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Moldovanu, Benny, 2004. "An experimental analysis of auctions with interdependent valuations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 54-85, July.
    7. Marine Le Gall-Ely, 2009. "Définition, mesure et déterminants du consentement à payer du consommateur : synthèse critique et voies de recherche," Post-Print hal-00522826, HAL.
    8. Englmaier, Florian & Guillén, Pablo & Llorente, Loreto & Onderstal, Sander & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2009. "The chopstick auction: A study of the exposure problem in multi-unit auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 286-291, March.
    9. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Poen, Eva & Rei, J. Philipp, 2009. "Outside options: Another reason to choose the first-price auction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 153-169, February.
    10. Rodney Garratt & Mark Walker & John Wooders, 2012. "Behavior in second-price auctions by highly experienced eBay buyers and sellers," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 44-57, March.
    11. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2004. "Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 725-741, December.
    12. Peter Cramton & Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Erkut Ozbay & Pacharasut Sujarittanonta, 2012. "Discrete clock auctions: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(2), pages 309-322, June.
    13. Philippe Février & Laurent Linnemer & Michael Visser, 2007. "Buy or wait, that is the option: the buyer's option in sequential laboratory auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(1), pages 98-118, March.
    14. Stryszowska, M.A., 2006. "Essays on auctions," Other publications TiSEM 4e64e5bc-4b6d-4e0e-9b03-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Zultan, Ro’i, 2017. "Collusion and information revelation in auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 84-102.
    16. Christer Andersson & Ola Andersson & Tommy Andersson, 2013. "Sealed bid auctions versus ascending bid auctions: an experimental study," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Cerroni, S. & Watson, V. & Macdiarmid, J., 2018. "Preferences for healthy and environmentally sustainable food: Combining induced-value and home-grown experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277155, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. David L. Ortega & Robert S. Shupp & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Jayson L. Lusk, 2018. "Mitigating overbidding behavior in agribusiness and food marketing research: Results from induced value hybrid auction experiments," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 887-893, October.
    19. Kirchkamp, Oliver & Poen, Eva & Reiß, J. Philipp, 2004. "Bidding with outside options," Papers 04-21, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    20. Noussair, Charles & Silver, Jonathon, 2006. "Behavior in all-pay auctions with incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 189-206, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:soecon:v:72:y:2005:i:1:p:42-62. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    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.