IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/adl/wpaper/2017-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An evolutionary analysis of bidding behaviour in fair division games

Author

Listed:
  • Werner Güth

    (Max Planck Institute for Collective Goods (Bonn) and LUISS (Rome))

  • Paul Pezanis-Christou

    (School of Economics, University of Adelaide)

Abstract

We justify risk neutral equilibrium bidding in commonly known fair division games with incomplete information and counterfactual considerations via (i) optimally responding to individual conjectural beliefs concerning other bidders' behavior, what avoids counterfactual bidding, and (ii) determining the evolutionarily stable conjectural beliefs when fitness is measured by expected payoffs, what does not require common knowledge. Compared to auctions, fair division games feature interactive bidding contests in closed groups due to sharing the sales price equally among bidders. We axiomatically justify the game forms of first- and second-price fair division games, the former (latter) being over-bidding (under-bidding) proof, and we provide a condition for evolutionarily stable bidding to coincide with equilibrium bidding irrespectively of the number of bidders.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner Güth & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2017. "An evolutionary analysis of bidding behaviour in fair division games," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2017-12, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:adl:wpaper:2017-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://media.adelaide.edu.au/economics/papers/doc/wp2017-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Hang Wu, 2017. "A Naïve Approach to Bidding," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2017-03, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    2. Güth, Werner & Pezanis-Christou, Paul, 2015. "Believing in correlated types in spite of independence: An indirect evolutionary analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-3.
    3. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    4. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    5. Benny Moldovanu, 2002. "How to Dissolve a Partnership," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 158(1), pages 66-80, 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. Werner Güth & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2021. "An indirect evolutionary justification of risk neutral bidding in fair division games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(1), pages 63-74, March.
    2. Hickman Brent R. & Hubbard Timothy P. & Sağlam Yiğit, 2012. "Structural Econometric Methods in Auctions: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 67-106, August.
    3. van Damme, E.E.C., 1990. "Fair division under asymmetric information," Other publications TiSEM 81fa79c5-4265-47a2-a142-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    5. Strömbäck, Elon, 2015. "Policy by Public Procurement: Opportunities and Pitfalls," Umeå Economic Studies 915, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    6. Sundström, David, 2016. "On Specification and Inference in the Econometrics of Public Procurement," Umeå Economic Studies 931, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    7. Helmedag Fritz, 2021. "Basic Bidding Formats: Characteristics and Differences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 72(3), pages 183-197, November.
    8. Estrella Alonso & Joaquin Sanchez-Soriano & Juan Tejada, 2015. "A parametric family of two ranked objects auctions: equilibria and associated risk," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 141-160, February.
    9. Page Jr., F.H., 1994. "Optimal Auction Design with Risk Aversion and Correlated Information," Other publications TiSEM ac23fdfa-b35c-4015-9c5c-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Dutra, Renato Cabral Dias & Carpio, Lucio Guido Tapia, 2021. "Biodiesel auctions in Brazil: Symmetry of bids and informational paradigm," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    11. Page Jr., F.H., 1994. "Optimal Auction Design with Risk Aversion and Correlated Information," Discussion Paper 1994-109, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    12. Estrella Alonso & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano & Juan Tejada, 2020. "Mixed Mechanisms for Auctioning Ranked Items," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-26, December.
    13. M. Yenmez, 2015. "Incentive compatible market design with applications," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(3), pages 543-569, August.
    14. Anil Chorppath & Tansu Alpcan & Holger Boche, 2015. "Adversarial Behavior in Network Games," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 26-64, March.
    15. Peter J. Hammond, 2017. "Designing a strategyproof spot market mechanism with many traders: twenty-two steps to Walrasian equilibrium," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(1), pages 1-50, January.
    16. Çağıl Koçyiğit & Garud Iyengar & Daniel Kuhn & Wolfram Wiesemann, 2020. "Distributionally Robust Mechanism Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 159-189, January.
    17. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Hang Wu, 2017. "A Naïve Approach to Bidding," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2017-03, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    18. Fritz Helmedag, 2017. "Marktmacht in Aktion: Unterschiede zwischen Bietverfahren beim Verkauf und Einkauf," Chemnitz Economic Papers 008, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology, revised Jul 2017.
    19. Julio B. Clempner & Alexander S. Poznyak, 2021. "Analytical Method for Mechanism Design in Partially Observable Markov Games," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, February.
    20. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2020. "Improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2020-2, Nobel Prize Committee.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:adl:wpaper:2017-12. 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: Qazi Haque (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decadau.html .

    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.