IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v56y2008i3p295-312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Experimental Analysis of Modifications to the Centralized Milk Quota Exchange System in Quebec

Author

Listed:
  • Maurice Doyon
  • Virginie Simard
  • Kent D. Messer
  • Lota D. Tamini
  • Harry M. Kaiser

Abstract

Using experimental economics, this paper tests the potential impacts of modifying the centralized quota exchange system in Quebec with the intent of decreasing the quota price while minimizing negative impacts on auction effectiveness. Two separate treatments are applied to a uniform price auction similar to that employed in Quebec. The first treatment is an exclusion (5% or 15%) of the highest buyer bids and seller offers. The second is a tax (2% or 10%) on all units offered for sale that remain unsold. Various combinations of the two treatments are also tested. The results suggest that exclusion of the highest bids and offers can decrease the price of the quota and that a 15% exclusion rate is more effective than a 5% rate. The tax alone has little impact on quota price. The combination of the two treatments generates a more marked reduction in both the number of exchanges and the price of the quota than when the tax or the exclusion is applied individually. However, the combination of treatments results in a greater loss of economic efficiency. In all cases, relatively small market price reductions are realized at the expense of substantial losses in economic efficiency. La présente étude teste de manière expérimentale la capacité d'une modification au système centralisé de vente du quota à faire diminuer le prix du quota laitier au Québec tout en minimisant les impacts négatifs des changements sur l'efficacité de l'enchère. Cette modification consiste à appliquer deux traitements sur l'enchère de prix uniforme où s'échange le quota. Le premier traitement consiste en une exclusion (5% ou 15%) des mises les plus élevées des acheteurs et des vendeurs. Le second traitement est une taxe (2% ou 10%) appliquée aux unités que les vendeurs mettent en marché et ne réussissent pas à vendre. Différentes combinaisons de ces deux traitements sont également testées. Les données générées permettent de conclure que le mécanisme d'exclusion des mises les plus élevées permet de faire diminuer le prix du quota, l'exclusion de 15%étant plus efficace que celle de 5%. Pour sa part, la taxe seule a peu d'impact sur le prix du quota tandis que la combinaison des deux traitements entraîne une diminution du nombre de transactions et du prix du quota plus marquée que lorsque les traitements de taxe et d'exclusion sont appliqués individuellement. Cela a comme corollaire d'entraîner une perte d'efficacitééconomique plus importante. Dans tous les cas, des baisses de prix de marché relativement modestes sont réalisées au coût d'importantes pertes d'efficacitééconomique.

Suggested Citation

  • Maurice Doyon & Virginie Simard & Kent D. Messer & Lota D. Tamini & Harry M. Kaiser, 2008. "An Experimental Analysis of Modifications to the Centralized Milk Quota Exchange System in Quebec," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(3), pages 295-312, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:56:y:2008:i:3:p:295-312
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00130.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00130.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2008.00130.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antonio Alvarez & Carlos Arias & Luis Orea, 2006. "Explaining Differences in Milk Quota Values: The Role of Economic Efficiency," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 182-193.
    2. Bogetoft, Peter & Jensen, Peter Max Friis & Nielsen, Kurt & Olesen, Henrik Ballebye & Olsen, Rene H., 2002. "Single Bid Restriction in Milk Quota Exchanges - Comparing the Danish and the Ontario Exchanges," Unit of Economics Working Papers 24181, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Food and Resource Economic Institute.
    3. Milgrom,Paul, 2004. "Putting Auction Theory to Work," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521536721, October.
    4. Lusk, Jayson L. & Daniel, M. Scott & Mark, Darrell R. & Lusk, Christine L., 2001. "Alternative Calibration And Auction Institutions For Predicting Consumer Willingess To Pay For Nongenetically Modified Corn Chips," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Peter Cramton & Marek Pycia & Marzena Rostek & Marek Weretka, 2014. "Demand Reduction and Inefficiency in Multi-Unit Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(4), pages 1366-1400.
    6. Kent D. Messer & Harry M. Kaiser & Gregory L. Poe, 2007. "Voluntary Funding for Generic Advertising Using a Provision Point Mechanism: An Experimental Analysis of Option Assurance," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 612-631.
    7. Forsythe, Robert & Lundholm, Russell, 1990. "Information Aggregation in an Experimental Market," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 309-347, March.
    8. Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans & John A. List & David H. Reiley, 2006. "Demand Reduction In Multi-Unit Auctions With Varying Numbers Of Bidders: Theory And Evidence From A Field Experiment ," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(1), pages 203-231, February.
    9. David Lucking-Reiley & John A. List, 2000. "Demand Reduction in Multiunit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 961-972, September.
    10. Doyon, Maurice & Brodeur, Catherine & Gervais, Jean-Philippe, 2006. "Imputing Dairy Producers' Quota Discount Rate Using the Individual Export Milk Program in Quebec," CAFRI: Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, issue 7, pages 1-11, November.
    11. Menkhaus, Dale J. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Phillips, Owen R. & O'Neill, Patrick D., 1999. "Endogenous Choice Of Institution Under Supply And Demand Risks In Laboratory Forward And Spot Markets," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Kagel, John H & Levin, Dan, 2001. "Behavior in Multi-unit Demand Auctions: Experiments with Uniform Price and Dynamic Vickrey Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 413-454, March.
    13. Chatterjea, Arkadev & Jarrow, Robert A., 1998. "Market Manipulation, Price Bubbles, and a Model of the U.S. Treasury Securities Auction Market," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-289, June.
    14. repec:feb:framed:0052 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Maurice A. Doyon, 2001. "The Effect of the Elimination of Federal Milk Marketing Orders on Farm-level Markets: A Laboratory Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 49(3), pages 353-374, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elskamp, Rebecca & Hailu, Getu, 2013. "Do Efficient Dairy Producers Purchase Quota?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149678, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Brümmer, Bernhard & Loy, Jens-Peter & Requate, Till, 2010. "Auction Experiments and Simulations of Milk Quota Exchanges," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61304, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Maurice Doyon & Lota Tamini & Virginie Simard & Kent Messer & Harry M. Kaiser, 2006. "L'économie expérimentale pour l'analyse de modifications au système centralisé de vente du quota laitier au Québec," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-23, CIRANO.
    2. Haoran He & Yefeng Chen, 2021. "Auction mechanisms for allocating subsidies for carbon emissions reduction: an experimental investigation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(2), pages 387-430, August.
    3. Dirk Engelmann & Veronika Grimm, 2003. "Bidding Behavior in Multi-Unit Auctions - An Experimental Investigation and some Theoretical Insights," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp210, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    4. Axel Ockenfels & David Reiley & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2006. "Online Auctions," NBER Working Papers 12785, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Bayona, Anna & Brandts, Jordi & Vives, Xavier, 2020. "Information frictions and market power: A laboratory study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 354-369.
    6. Schnitzlein, Charles R. & Shao, Minjie, 2013. "Capacity constraints and the winner's curse in multi-unit common value auctions," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 188-201.
    7. Jacob Goeree & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2013. "Demand reduction and preemptive bidding in multi-unit license auctions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(1), pages 52-87, March.
    8. Marco Pagnozzi, 2007. "Should Speculators Be Welcomed in Auctions?," CSEF Working Papers 176, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    9. Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2009. "Multi-Unit Auctions and Competition Stricture," Working Papers 09-18, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2009.
    10. Ping Zhang, 2009. "Characterization of Pure Strategy Equilibria in Uniform Price IPO Auctions," Discussion Papers 2009-05, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    11. Pagnozzi, Marco, 2009. "Resale and bundling in auctions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 667-678, November.
    12. Elena Katok & Alvin E. Roth, 2004. "Auctions of Homogeneous Goods with Increasing Returns: Experimental Comparison of Alternative "Dutch" Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(8), pages 1044-1063, August.
    13. Vives, Xavier & Bayona, Anna & Brandts, Jordi, 2016. "Supply Function Competition, Private Information, and Market Power: A Laboratory Study," IESE Research Papers D/1146, IESE Business School.
    14. Alessandra Casella & Adam B. Cox, 2018. "A Property Rights Approach to Temporary Work Visas," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(S1), pages 195-227.
    15. Dan Levin, 2005. "Demand Reduction in Multi-Unit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 467-471, March.
    16. Christopher M. Anderson & Daniel S. Holland, 2006. "Auctions for Initial Sale of Annual Catch Entitlement," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 333-352.
    17. Manzano, Carolina & Vives, Xavier, 2021. "Market power and welfare in asymmetric divisible good auctions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    18. Porter, David & Rassenti, Stephen & Shobe, William & Smith, Vernon & Winn, Abel, 2009. "The design, testing and implementation of Virginia's NOx allowance auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 190-200, February.
    19. Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans & John A. List & David H. Reiley, 2005. "Demand Reduction in Multi-Unit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 472-476, March.
    20. Alexander Elbittar & Andrei Gomberg, 2007. "Uniform-Price Auctions without Exogenous Uncertainty: An experimental study," Working Papers DTE 404, CIDE, División de Economía.

    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:bla:canjag:v:56:y:2008:i:3:p:295-312. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.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.