IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tch/wpaper/cep008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Marktmacht in Aktion: Unterschiede zwischen Bietverfahren beim Verkauf und Einkauf

Author

Listed:
  • Fritz Helmedag

    (Chemnitz University of Technology, Chair in Microeconomics)

Abstract

Die etablierte Auktionstheorie modelliert vier elementare Bietverfahren als Spiele, in denen die Natur anfänglich den Typ der Akteure determiniert. Das von dieser (Vor-)Auswahl abhängige Gleichgewicht kennzeichnet sich durch wechselseitig beste Antworten aller Beteiligten. Laut „Revenue Equivalence Theorem“ stimmen die Resultate der alternativen Allokationsmethoden überein. Tatsächlich ignoriert der herrschende Ansatz, dass sich die Entscheidungssituationen der Kandidaten in den Grundausprägungen unterscheiden: Müssen die Bieter die Konkurrentenzahl berücksichtigen („stochastisches“ Vorgehen) oder nicht („deterministischer“ Ablauf)? Außerdem vernachlässigt die Standard-Auktionstheorie die Funktionsweise der Beschaffungsalternativen. Die wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretisch fundierte Auftragsakquise leidet neben der unbekannten Stärke des Bewerberkreises unter einem zusätzlichen Informationsdefizit, das die Neigung der potentiellen Leistungsersteller zu Absprachen verstärkt. Im Ergebnis sollte man aus Effizienzgründen den stochastischen Zuschlagsbestimmungen prinzipiell mit Skepsis begegnen. Insbesondere bei Submissionen der öffentlichen Hand ist es daher geboten, (wenigstens) die maximale Zahlungsbereitschaft anzugeben, um Wettbewerbsverfälschungen zu mindern.

Suggested Citation

  • Fritz Helmedag, 2017. "Marktmacht in Aktion: Unterschiede zwischen Bietverfahren beim Verkauf und Einkauf," Chemnitz Economic Papers 008, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology, revised Jul 2017.
    • Handle: RePEc:tch:wpaper:cep008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/wirtschaft/vwl1/RePEc/download/tch/wpaper/CEP008_Bietverfahren23.pdf
    File Function: Third revised version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Menezes, Flavio M., 2008. "An Introduction to Auction Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199275991.
    2. Paul Klemperer (ed.), 2000. "The Economic Theory of Auctions," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, volume 0, number 1669.
    3. David Lucking-Reiley, 1999. "Using Field Experiments to Test Equivalence between Auction Formats: Magic on the Internet," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1063-1080, December.
    4. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    5. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    6. Kagel, John H. & Levin, Dan, 1986. "The Winner's Curse and Public Information in Common Value Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 894-920, December.
    7. Milgrom, Paul, 1989. "Auctions and Bidding: A Primer," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 3-22, Summer.
    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. Michael H. Rothkopf & Sunju Park, 2001. "An Elementary Introduction to Auctions," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 83-97, December.
    2. Strömbäck, Elon, 2015. "Policy by Public Procurement: Opportunities and Pitfalls," Umeå Economic Studies 915, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    3. Helmedag Fritz, 2021. "Basic Bidding Formats: Characteristics and Differences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 72(3), pages 183-197, November.
    4. Garrett van Ryzin & Gustavo Vulcano, 2004. "Optimal Auctioning and Ordering in an Infinite Horizon Inventory-Pricing System," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 346-367, June.
    5. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2007. "Level-k Auctions: Can a Nonequilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner's Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(6), pages 1721-1770, November.
    6. Cramton, Peter C, 1995. "Money Out of Thin Air: The Nationwide Narrowband PCS Auction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(2), pages 267-343, Summer.
    7. Crawford, Vincent P. & Kuo, Ping-Sing, 2003. "A dual Dutch auction in Taipei: the choice of numeraire and auction form in multi-object auctions with bundling," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 427-442, August.
    8. Bresky, Michal, 2013. "Revenue and efficiency in multi-unit uniform-price auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 205-217.
    9. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2020. "Improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2020-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    10. Park, Sunju & Rothkopf, Michael H., 2005. "Auctions with bidder-determined allowable combinations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(2), pages 399-415, March.
    11. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    12. Abbink, Klaus & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Pezanis-Christou, Paul & Rockenbach, Bettina & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & Selten, Reinhard, 2005. "An experimental test of design alternatives for the British 3G/UMTS auction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 505-530, February.
    13. Schmöller, Arno, 2010. "Bidding Behavior, Seller Strategies, and the Utilization of Information in Auctions for Complex Goods," Munich Dissertations in Economics 11175, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    14. Gustavo Vulcano & Garrett van Ryzin & Costis Maglaras, 2002. "Optimal Dynamic Auctions for Revenue Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(11), pages 1388-1407, November.
    15. Ravi Kashyap, 2018. "Auction Theory Adaptations for Real Life Applications," Papers 1810.01736, arXiv.org, revised May 2019.
    16. Simon Stevenson & James Young, 2015. "The probability of sale and price premiums in withdrawn auctioned properties," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(2), pages 279-297, February.
    17. Castro, Luciano I. de, 2007. "Affiliation, equilibrium existence and the revenue ranking of auctions," UC3M Working papers. Economics we074622, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    18. Lorentziadis, Panos L., 2016. "Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(2), pages 347-371.
    19. Hailu, Atakelty & Schilizzi, Steven, 2003. "Investigating the performance of market-based instruments for resource conservation: the contribution of agent-based modelling," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57883, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Li, Zhi-Chun & Wu, Qiao-Yu & Yang, Hai, 2019. "A theory of auto ownership rationing," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 125-146.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auctions; Strategic Bidding;

    JEL classification:

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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:tch:wpaper:cep008. 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: Christian Kulitza (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwtucde.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.