IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/natura/00490.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing Neoclassical Competitive Theory in Multilateral Decentralized Markets

Author

Listed:
  • John List

Abstract

Walrasian tatonnement has been a fundamental assumption in economics ever since Walras' general equilibrium theory was introduced in 1874. Nearly a century after its introduction, Vernon Smith relaxed the Walrasian tatonnement assumption by showing that neoclassical competitive market theory explains the equilibrating forces in "double-auction" markets. I make a next step in this evolution by exploring the predictive power of neoclassical theory in decentralized naturally occurring markets. Using data gathered from two distinct markets- the sports card and collector pin markets-I find a tendency for exchange prices to approach the neoclassical competitive model prediction after a few market periods.

Suggested Citation

  • John List, 2004. "Testing Neoclassical Competitive Theory in Multilateral Decentralized Markets," Natural Field Experiments 00490, The Field Experiments Website.
    • Handle: RePEc:feb:natura:00490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00490.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James T. Hong & Charles R. Plott, 1982. "Rate Filing Policies for Inland Water Transportation: An Experimental Approach," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, Spring.
    2. repec:feb:artefa:0102 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. John List, 2002. "Testing neoclassical competitive market theory in the field," Artefactual Field Experiments 00082, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles a., 1993. "Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 8(2), pages 179-212.
    5. John A. List & David Lucking-Reiley, 2002. "The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(1), pages 215-233, February.
    6. John List, 2002. "Testing neoclassical competitive market theory in the field: Some pilot results," Framed Field Experiments 00172, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Vernon L. Smith, 1962. "An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70, pages 322-322.
    8. Butler, J S & Moffitt, Robert, 1982. "A Computationally Efficient Quadrature Procedure for the One-Factor Multinomial Probit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 761-764, May.
    9. Gode, Dhananjay K & Sunder, Shyam, 1993. "Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 119-137, February.
    10. Paul Brewer & Maria Huang & Brad Nelson & Charles Plott, 2002. "On the Behavioral Foundations of the Law of Supply and Demand: Human Convergence and Robot Randomness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 179-208, December.
    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. John List, 2002. "Testing neoclassical competitive market theory in the field: Some pilot results," Framed Field Experiments 00172, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Centorrino, Samuele & Moscati, Ivan, 2016. "Over-the-counter markets vs. double auctions: A comparative experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 22-35.
    3. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Giuseppe Attanasi & Samuele Centorrino & Elena Manzoni, 2020. "Zero-Intelligence vs. Human Agents: An Experimental Analysis of the Efficiency of Double Auctions and Over-the-Counter Markets of Varying Sizes," Working Papers 05/2020, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    5. Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Competitive equilibrium and the double auction," Economics Series Working Papers 974, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Bulte, Erwin & Kontoleon, Andreas & List, John & Turley, Ty & Voors, Maarten, 2017. "From personalized exchange towards anonymous trade: A field experiment on the workings of the invisible hand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 313-330.
    7. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-47, April.
    8. Tai, Chung-Ching & Chen, Shu-Heng & Yang, Lee-Xieng, 2018. "Cognitive ability and earnings performance: Evidence from double auction market experiments," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 409-440.
    9. César Martinelli & Jianxin Wang & Weiwei Zheng, 2023. "Competition with indivisibilities and few traders," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 78-106, March.
    10. Katerina Sherstyuk & Krit Phankitnirundorn & Michael J. Roberts, 2021. "Randomized double auctions: gains from trade, trader roles, and price discovery," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1325-1364, December.
    11. Alex Richardson & Shirley Gregor & Richard Heaney, 2012. "Using decision support to manage the influence of cognitive abilities on share trading performance," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 37(3), pages 523-541, December.
    12. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    13. Brewer, Paul & Ratan, Anmol, 2019. "Profitability, efficiency, and inequality in double auction markets with snipers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 486-499.
    14. Margherita Comola & Marcel Fafchamps, 2015. "An Experimental Study of Decentralized Link Formation with Competition," NBER Working Papers 21758, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Ortmann, Andreas, 2003. "Charles R. Plott's collected papers on the experimental foundations of economic and political science," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 555-575, August.
    16. Ross M. Miller, 2012. "The Effect Of Boundary Conditions On Efficiency And Pricing In Double‐Auction Markets With Zero‐Intelligence Agents," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 179-188, July.
    17. Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Competitive equilibrium and the double auction," Papers 2209.07532, arXiv.org.
    18. Duffy, John, 2006. "Agent-Based Models and Human Subject Experiments," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 949-1011, Elsevier.
    19. Crockett, Sean & Spear, Stephen & Sunder, Shyam, 2008. "Learning competitive equilibrium," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(7-8), pages 651-671, July.
    20. Bettinger, Eric & Slonim, Robert, 2006. "Using experimental economics to measure the effects of a natural educational experiment on altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(8-9), pages 1625-1648, September.

    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:feb:natura:00490. 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: David Franks (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.com .

    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.