Voting rules and endogenous trading institutions: An experimental study
This paper reports on recurring laboratory elections in which buyers and sellers choose institutional rules to govern a subsequent trading round. The bid auction (buyers propose prices), offer auction (sellers suggest prices) and double auction (both trader types initiate price quotes) make up the electoral candidates. Both plurality rule and approval voting are used as vote-counting schemes. The former allows each trader to vote for at most one auction, whereas approval voting permits voters to either abstain or to vote for one, two or all three institutional alternatives. The main result is threefold.First, plurality rule induces a Duverger effect in the sense that just the bid and offer auction emerge as viable auctions. Approval voting instead leads to close three-way races with each of the three auctions winning approximately one third of the elections. Second, buyers (sellers) in the plurality rule sessions concordantly vote for the bid (offer) auction. Approval voting behavior is comparatively more heterogeneous. Third, bid auction prices are significantly lower than double auction prices, which again are significantly below offer auction prices.
|Date of creation:||17 Jun 2003|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Department of Economics, University of Oslo, P.O Box 1095 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway|
Phone: 22 85 51 27
Fax: 22 85 50 35
Web page: http://www.oekonomi.uio.no/indexe.html
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.:
- Brams, Steven J. & Fishburn, Peter C., 1989.
"Approval Voting in Practice,"
89-07, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Forsythe, Robert & Rietz, Thomas & Myerson, Roger & Weber, Robert, 1996. "An Experimental Study of Voting Rules and Polls in Three-Candidate Elections," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 355-383.
- Jon Ketcham & Vernon L. Smith & Arlington W. Williams, 1984. "A Comparison of Posted-Offer and Double-Auction Pricing Institutions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 595-614.
- Roger B. Myerson, 1994. "Analysis of Democratic Institutions: Structure," Discussion Papers 1095, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 1988. "Market behavior in bid, offer, and double auctions : A Reexmination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 301-314, April.
- Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith, 1978.
"An Experimental Examination of Two Exchange Institutions,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 133-153.
- Plott, Charles R. & Smith, Vernon L., "undated". "An Experimental Examination of Two Exchange Institutions," Working Papers 83, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Jonathan Levin & Barry Nalebuff, 1995. "An Introduction to Vote-Counting Schemes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 3-26, Winter.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:osloec:2002_017. 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: (Magnus Gabriel Aase)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.