IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000100/003680.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Un Método para Discernir entre Paradigmas de Valor Privado y Común en Subastas Uniproducto

Author

Listed:
  • Alvaro Riascos
  • Andrés Carvajal
  • Diego Vásquez
  • Diana Gómez

Abstract

Durante las últimas décadas, el mecanismo de subastas ha ganado enorme popularidad como herramienta de asignación de recursos y preponderancia como agenda de investigación académica. En particular, considerando las diferentes alternativas de diseño de una subasta, se han estudiado sus propiedades de optimalidad, tanto del punto de vista de eficiencia social como del de rentabilidad (optimalidad privada). Por supuesto, existen factores relativamente objetivos que pueden afectar estos aspectos de optimalidad, tales como la arquitectura misma de la subasta, o el poder de mercado de los compradores. Adicionalmente, hay un factor subjetivo que es crucial al momento de estudiar el problema y que es intrínseco al bien subastado: la forma en que los agentes valoran dicho objeto. Según este último aspecto, las subastas se encuentran divididas en dos grandes grupos: i) las de valor privado y ii) las de valor común. Las subastas de valor privado son aquellas donde los jugadores conocen su propia valoración del objeto a ser subastado, y les es indiferente conocer las valoraciónes de los demás jugadores: si un jugador se entera de la verdadera valoración de otro, esto no conduce a un cambio en la suya. Como ejemplo se tiene una subasta de una obra de arte para uso personal, donde cada individuo valora la obra según sus propias preferencias y a partir de éstas procede a realizar su oferta. Las subastas de valor común se caracterizan por ser aquellas donde el valor del objeto es el mismo para todos, pero los individuos desconocen este valor y, por consiguiente, se basan en señales recibidas para hacer estimaciones de él.

Suggested Citation

  • Alvaro Riascos & Andrés Carvajal & Diego Vásquez & Diana Gómez, 2003. "Un Método para Discernir entre Paradigmas de Valor Privado y Común en Subastas Uniproducto," Investigación Económica en Colombia 3680, Fundación Pondo.
  • Handle: RePEc:col:000100:003680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.webpondo.org/filesjul_sep03/discernir.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paarsch, Harry J., 1992. "Deciding between the common and private value paradigms in empirical models of auctions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 191-215.
    2. Michael H. Rothkopf, 1969. "A Model of Rational Competitive Bidding," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(7), pages 362-373, 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. Jacob K. Goeree & Theo Offerman, 2003. "Competitive Bidding in Auctions with Private and Common Values," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(489), pages 598-613, July.
    2. Li, Tong & Perrigne, Isabelle & Vuong, Quang, 2000. "Conditionally independent private information in OCS wildcat auctions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 129-161, September.
    3. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2020. "Improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2020-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    4. Jean-Jacques Laffont, 1998. "Théorie des jeux et économie empirique : le cas des données issues d'enchères," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 132(1), pages 121-137.
    5. Philippe Février, 2008. "Nonparametric identification and estimation of a class of common value auction models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(7), pages 949-964.
    6. Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1997. "Game theory and empirical economics: The case of auction data 1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-35, January.
    7. Philippe Février, 2007. "Nonparametric Identification and Estimation of a Common Value Auction Model," Working Papers 2007-22, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    8. Florencia Gabrielli, 2014. "Econometrics of First Price Auctions: a Survey of the Theoretical and Applied Literature," Económica, Departamento de Economía, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, vol. 60, pages 77-118, January-D.
    9. Patrick Bajari & Ali Hortaçsu, 2004. "Economic Insights from Internet Auctions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 457-486, June.
    10. Popkowski Leszczyc, Peter T.L. & Qiu, Chun & He, Yongfu, 2009. "Empirical Testing of the Reference-Price Effect of Buy-Now Prices in Internet Auctions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 211-221.
    11. İlke Onur & Rasim Özcan & Bedri Taş, 2012. "Public Procurement Auctions and Competition in Turkey," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 40(3), pages 207-223, May.
    12. Giovanni Compiani & Philip Haile & Marcelo Sant’Anna, 2020. "Common Values, Unobserved Heterogeneity, and Endogenous Entry in US Offshore Oil Lease Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(10), pages 3872-3912.
    13. Brendstrup, Bjarne & Paarsch, Harry J., 2007. "Semiparametric identification and estimation in multi-object, English auctions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 84-108, November.
    14. Dirk Alboth & Anat Lerner & Jonathan Shalev, 2001. "Profit Maximizing in Auctions of Public Goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 3(4), pages 501-525, October.
    15. Ronald M. Harstad, 2007. "Does a Seller Really Want Another Bidder?," Working Papers 0711, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    16. Philip A. Haile & Elie Tamer, 2003. "Inference with an Incomplete Model of English Auctions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(1), pages 1-51, February.
    17. John K. Horowitz & Lori Lynch & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Competition-Based Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Farmland Preservation in Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 555-575.
    18. Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1994. "The New Economics of Regulation Ten Years After," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 507-537, May.
    19. Antonio Estache & Atsushi Iimi, 2009. "Joint Bidding, Governance And Public Procurement Costs:A Case Of Road Projects," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 80(3), pages 393-429, September.
    20. Gordy, Michael B, 1998. "Computationally Convenient Distributional Assumptions for Common-Value Auctions," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 12(1), pages 61-78, August.

    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:col:000100:003680. 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: Katherine Aguirre (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.