IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/wc2000/1827.html

Bribery and Favoritism by Auctioneers in Sealed Bid Auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Roberto Burguet

    (Institute for Economic Analysis)

  • Martin Perry

    (Rutgers University)

Abstract

We consider a model of bribery in an asymmetric procurement auction. In return for a bribe from the dishonest supplier, the auctioneer has the discretion to allow this supplier to revise his bid downward to match the low bid of the honest supplier. The dishonest supplier can also win the contract outright without paying a bribe by bidding below the honest supplier. We investigate the effect of the bribe share and the cost distributions on the bidding functions, the allocative distortion, and the expected price paid by the buyer. The dishonest supplier bids more aggressively to win the contract outright when the auctioneer takes a larger bribe share. Bribery and the implied right of first refusal introduce a new allocative distortion in favor of the dishonest supplier. Finally, we use the power family of cost distributions to examine the expected price paid by the buyer. When the dishonest supplier has a more favorable cost distribution, there exist bribe shares sufficiently large such that the expected price paid by the buyer can actually decline as a result of bribery.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Roberto Burguet & Martin Perry, 2000. "Bribery and Favoritism by Auctioneers in Sealed Bid Auctions," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1827, Econometric Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:1827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/1827.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McAfee, R. Preston & McMillan, John, 1989. "Government procurement and international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3-4), pages 291-308, May.
    2. Waehrer, Keith & Perry, Martin K, 2003. "The Effects of Mergers in Open-Auction Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 287-304, Summer.
    3. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    4. Waehrer, Keith, 1999. "Asymmetric private values auctions with application to joint bidding and mergers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 437-452, April.
    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. Martin K. Perry & Roberto Burguet, 2015. "Preferred Suppliers and Vertical Integration in Auction Market," Working Papers 74, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Lamping, Jennifer, 2008. "Ignorance Is Bliss: Matching in Auctions with an Uninformed Seller," MPRA Paper 24374, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Cantillon, Estelle, 2008. "The effect of bidders' asymmetries on expected revenue in auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 1-25, January.
    4. Loertscher, Simon & Marx, Leslie M., 2019. "Merger review with intermediate buyer power," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    5. Maarten Janssen & Vladimir Karamychev, 2013. "Mergers in Bidding Markets," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-012/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Simon Loertscher & Leslie M. Marx, 2021. "Coordinated Effects in Merger Review," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(4), pages 705-744.
    7. Jingfeng Lu, 2009. "Auction design with opportunity cost," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 38(1), pages 73-103, January.
    8. Arozamena, Leandro & Weinschelbaum, Federico, 2011. "On favoritism in auctions with entry," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 265-267, March.
    9. Marion, Justin, 2007. "Are bid preferences benign? The effect of small business subsidies in highway procurement auctions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1591-1624, August.
    10. Jehiel, Philippe & Lamy, Laurent, 2014. "On discrimination in procurement auctions," CEPR Discussion Papers 9790, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    11. Melliger, Marc, 2023. "Quantifying technology skewness in European multi-technology auctions and the effect of design elements and other driving factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    12. Yeon-Koo Che & Elisabetta Iossa & Patrick Rey, 2021. "Prizes versus Contracts as Incentives for Innovation [Subgame Perfect Implementation Under Information Perturbations]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2149-2178.
    13. Jörg Franke, 2012. "The incentive effects of levelling the playing field -- an empirical analysis of amateur golf tournaments," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(9), pages 1193-1200, March.
    14. Tong Li & Bingyu Zhang, 2015. "Affiliation and Entry in First-Price Auctions with Heterogeneous Bidders: An Analysis of Merger Effects," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 188-214, May.
    15. Alcalde, José & Dahm, Matthias, 2013. "Competition for procurement shares," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 193-208.
    16. Vincent van den Berg, 2012. "Advantaged Bidders in Franchise Auctions," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-117/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. José Alcalde & Matthias Dahm, "undated". "Supplier Diversity before the Time of Cholera," Discussion Papers in Economics 20/07, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    18. Branco, Fernando, 2002. "Procurement favouritism and technology adoption," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 73-91, January.
    19. Michel Mougeot & Pierre Malgrange, 2002. "Présentation générale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 156(5), pages 1-7.
    20. Cole, Matthew T. & Davies, Ronald B. & Kaplan, Todd, 2017. "Protection in government procurement auctions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 134-142.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions

    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:ecm:wc2000:1827. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.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.