IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bge/wpaper/155.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experimental Evidence on the Multibidding Mechanism

Author

Listed:
  • David Pérez-Castrillo
  • Róbert F. Veszteg

Abstract

Pérez-Castrillo and Wettstein (2002) and Veszteg (2004) propose the use of a multibidding mechanism for situations where agents have to choose a common project. Examples are decisions involving public goods (or public "bads"). We report experimental results to test the practical tractability and effectiveness of the multibidding mechanisms in environments where agents hold private information concerning their valuation of the projects. The mechanism performed quite well in the laboratory: it provided the ex post efficient outcome in roughly three quarters of the cases across the treatments; moreover, the largest part of the subject pool formed their bids according to the theoretical bidding behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • David Pérez-Castrillo & Róbert F. Veszteg, 2005. "Experimental Evidence on the Multibidding Mechanism," Working Papers 155, Barcelona School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:bge:wpaper:155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.barcelonagse.eu/sites/default/files/working_paper_pdfs/155.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Pérez-Castrillo & David Wettstein, 2002. "Choosing Wisely: A Multibidding Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1577-1587, December.
    2. Binmore, Ken & McCarthy, John & Ponti, Giovanni & Samuelson, Larry & Shaked, Avner, 2002. "A Backward Induction Experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 48-88, May.
    3. William Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Lise Vesterlund, 2002. "Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 53-84, June.
    4. Róbert Veszteg, 2010. "Multibidding game under uncertainty," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 14(3), pages 311-329, September.
    5. Pavlo Blavatsky, 2003. "Note on "Small Feedback-based Decisions and Their Limited Correspondence to Description-based Decisions"," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp218, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    6. Smith, Vernon L, 1979. " An Experimental Comparison of Three Public Good Decision Mechanisms," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(2), pages 198-215.
    7. Josef Falkinger, 2000. "A Simple Mechanism for the Efficient Provision of Public Goods: Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 247-264, March.
    8. 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.
    9. d'Aspremont, Claude & Gerard-Varet, Louis-Andre, 1979. "Incentives and incomplete information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 25-45, February.
    10. Smith, Vernon L, 1980. "Experiments with a Decentralized Mechanism for Public Good Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(4), pages 584-599, September.
    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. Róbert Veszteg, 2010. "Multibidding game under uncertainty," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 14(3), pages 311-329, September.
    2. Pérez-Castrillo, David & Quérou, Nicolas, 2012. "Smooth multibidding mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 420-438.
    3. Perez-Castrillo, David & Veszteg, Robert F., 2007. "Choosing a common project: Experimental evidence on the multibidding mechanism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 394-411, July.

    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. Perez-Castrillo, David & Veszteg, Robert F., 2007. "Choosing a common project: Experimental evidence on the multibidding mechanism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 394-411, July.
    2. repec:dpr:wpaper:0874 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Reischmann, Andreas, 2016. "Conditional Contribution Mechanisms for the Provision of Public Goods in Dynamic Settings - Theory and Experimental Evidence," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145613, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Reischmann, Andreas, 2015. "The Conditional Contribution Mechanism for the Provision of Public Goods," Working Papers 0586, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    5. Don Coursey & William Schulze, 1986. "The application of laboratory experimental economics to the contingent valuation of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 47-68, January.
    6. Alberti, Federica & Mantilla, César, 2020. "Provision of noxious facilities using a market-like mechanism: A simple implementation in the lab," Working papers 35, Red Investigadores de Economía.
    7. Reischmann, Andreas, 2015. "Conditional vs. Voluntary Contribution Mechanism – An Experimental Study," Working Papers 0587, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    8. Pintér, Ágnes & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2010. "Minority vs. majority: An experimental study of standardized bids," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 36-50, March.
    9. Dragicevic, Arnaud Z. & Ettinger, David, 2011. "Private Valuation of a Public Good in Three Auction Mechanisms," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-29, April.
    10. Corchón, Luis C., 2008. "The theory of implementation : what did we learn?," UC3M Working papers. Economics we081207, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    11. Laurent-Lucchetti, Jérémy & Leroux, Justin, 2011. "Choosing and sharing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 296-300, September.
    12. Harrison, Glenn W & Hirshleifer, Jack, 1989. "An Experimental Evaluation of Weakest Link/Best Shot Models of Public Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(1), pages 201-225, February.
    13. Lars Ehlers, 2009. "Choosing wisely: the natural multi-bidding mechanism," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(3), pages 505-512, June.
    14. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Saran, Rene & Serrano, Roberto, 2023. "Continuous level-k mechanism design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 481-501.
    15. Pérez-Castrillo, David & Quérou, Nicolas, 2012. "Smooth multibidding mechanisms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 420-438.
    16. Philippe Jehiel & Benny Moldovanu, 2005. "Allocative and Informational Externalities in Auctions and Related Mechanisms," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000490, UCLA Department of Economics.
    17. Yan Chen & Robert Gazzale, 2004. "When Does Learning in Games Generate Convergence to Nash Equilibria? The Role of Supermodularity in an Experimental Setting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1505-1535, December.
    18. Van Essen, Matthew J., 2008. "A Simple Supermodular Mechanism that Implements Lindahl Allocations," MPRA Paper 12781, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Róbert Veszteg, 2010. "Multibidding game under uncertainty," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 14(3), pages 311-329, September.
    20. Gailmard, Sean & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2005. "An experimental comparison of collective choice procedures for excludable public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1361-1398, August.
    21. Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela & Vranceanu, Radu, 2016. "Do people contribute more to intra-temporal or inter-temporal public goods?," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 186-195.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    experiments; mechanisms; uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:bge:wpaper:155. 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: Bruno Guallar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bargses.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.