Favouritism and cartel disruption in first-price auctions
The seller in an auction will generally not be happy to know that a cartel of bidders will take part in that auction. Cartels generate their profits by inducing a final price which is lower (higher in the case of procurement contracts' auctions) than in a competitive auction. This paper proposes a solution to the problem. By allowing the seller to cheat on the auction rules, and to allocate the good to a given bidder with a predetermined probability (favouritism), we show that when no cartel is active, the auction leads to a lower price than that obtained in a purely competitive auction. However, if a cartel is operative, favouritism generates incentives for the favoured bidder to defect the cartel. This single defection is sufficient to disrupt the cartel. In equilibrium, the seller may choose this probability of cheating so as to obtain the highest possible final auction price, which we show to be a second-best outcome. In other words, this proposed solution to the cartel's existence does not lead to a final auction price as high as that obtained in a competitive auction.
|Date of creation:||Apr 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Campus Universitario de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro|
Phone: +351 234 370 361
Fax: +351 234 370 215
Web page: http://www.ua.pt/egi/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John, 1992.
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 579-99, June.
- Steven A. Matthews, 1995. "A Technical Primer on Auction Theory I: Independent Private Values," Discussion Papers 1096, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Skrzypacz, A. & Hopenhayn, H., 1999. "Bidding Rings in Repeated Auctions," RCER Working Papers 463, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Riley, John G & Samuelson, William F, 1981.
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 381-92, June.
- Paul Klemperer, 1999.
"Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature,"
- Paul Klemperer, 1999. "Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Economics Series Working Papers 1999-W12, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Klemperer, Paul, 1999. "Auction Theory: a Guide to the Literature," CEPR Discussion Papers 2163, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Klemperer, P., 1999. "Auction Theory: a Guide to the Literature," Economics Papers 1999-w12, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
- 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 1217-39, December.
- Chantale LaCasse, 1995. "Bid Rigging and the Threat of Government Prosecution," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(3), pages 398-417, Autumn.
- Feinstein, Jonathan S & Block, Michael K & Nold, Frederick C, 1985. "Asymmetric Information and Collusive Behavior in Auction Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 441-60, June.
- Milgrom, Paul R & Weber, Robert J, 1982.
"A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding,"
Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1089-1122, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ave:wpaper:152004. 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: (Marta Ferreira Dias)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.