IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v117y2012i2p394-396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partnership dissolution mechanisms in the laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Kittsteiner, Thomas
  • Ockenfels, Axel
  • Trhal, Nadja

Abstract

We experimentally compare two partnership dissolution mechanisms, the widely-used buy–sell clause and the winner’s bid auction. While standard theory does well in organizing many laboratory patterns, it does not easily capture that many subjects bid valuations, especially in the buy–sell clause. As a result of this behavior, the buy–sell clause weakly outperforms the auction with respect to efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Kittsteiner, Thomas & Ockenfels, Axel & Trhal, Nadja, 2012. "Partnership dissolution mechanisms in the laboratory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 394-396.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:117:y:2012:i:2:p:394-396
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016517651200225X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.084?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cramton, Peter & Gibbons, Robert & Klemperer, Paul, 1987. "Dissolving a Partnership Efficiently," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 615-632, May.
    2. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    3. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes & Nagore Iriberri, 2010. "Strategic Thinking," Levine's Working Paper Archive 661465000000001148, David K. Levine.
    4. Vincent P. Crawford, 1977. "A Game of Fair Division," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 44(2), pages 235-247.
    5. María‐Angeles de Frutos & Thomas Kittsteiner, 2008. "Efficient partnership dissolution under buy‐sell clauses," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 184-198, March.
    6. Preston McAfee, R., 1992. "Amicable divorce: Dissolving a partnership with simple mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 266-293, April.
    7. Richard R. W. Brooks & Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2010. "Trigger happy or gun shy? Dissolving common‐value partnerships with Texas shootouts," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 649-673, December.
    8. Werner Güth & Radosveta Ivanova–Stenzel & Manfred Königstein & Martin Strobel, 2002. "Bid Functions in Auctions and Fair Division Games: Experimental Evidence," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(4), pages 461-484, November.
    9. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Werner G¸th & Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel & Manfred K–nigstein & Martin Strobel, 2003. "Learning to bid - an experimental study of bid function adjustments in auctions and fair division games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(487), pages 477-494, April.
    11. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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. Daniel Fershtman & Béla Szabadi & Cédric Wasser, 2023. "Efficient resolution of partnership disputes," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 54(4), pages 543-569, December.
    2. Ludwig Ensthaler & Thomas Giebe & Jianpei Li, 2014. "Speculative partnership dissolution with auctions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(2), pages 127-150, June.
    3. Oechssler, Jörg & Roomets, Alex, 2023. "Dissolving an ambiguous partnership," Working Papers 0733, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    4. Alexander L. Brown & Rodrigo A. Velez, 2019. "Empirical bias and efficiency of alpha-auctions: experimental evidence," Papers 1905.03876, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2020.
    5. Richard R. W. Brooks & Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2010. "Trigger happy or gun shy? Dissolving common‐value partnerships with Texas shootouts," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 649-673, December.
    6. Hyndman, Kyle, 2021. "Dissolving partnerships under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 702-720.
    7. Yuri Khoroshilov, 2018. "Partnership Dissolution: Information and Efficiency+," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 133-138, September.
    8. Nicola Dimitri, 2021. "The “Italian Football Federation Auction” for Co-ownership Resolution," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 58(2), pages 275-285, March.
    9. Brown, Alexander L. & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2016. "The costs and benefits of symmetry in common-ownership allocation problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 115-131.
    10. Brünner, Tobias & Becker, Alice, 2013. "Bidding in common value fair division games," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79810, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic 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. Brown, Alexander L. & Velez, Rodrigo A., 2016. "The costs and benefits of symmetry in common-ownership allocation problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 115-131.
    2. Bauch, Gerrit & Riedel, Frank, 2024. "The Texas Shoot-Out under Knightian uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 35-50.
    3. Hyndman, Kyle, 2021. "Dissolving partnerships under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 702-720.
    4. Van Essen, Matt & Wooders, John, 2016. "Dissolving a partnership dynamically," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 212-241.
    5. Sutter, Matthias & Czermak, Simon & Feri, Francesco, 2010. "Strategic Sophistication of Individuals and Teams in Experimental Normal-Form Games," Working Papers in Economics 430, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    6. Richard R. W. Brooks & Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2010. "Trigger happy or gun shy? Dissolving common‐value partnerships with Texas shootouts," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 649-673, December.
    7. Comino, Stefano & Nicolò, Antonio & Tedeschi, Piero, 2010. "Termination clauses in partnerships," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(5), pages 718-732, July.
    8. Brünner, Tobias & Becker, Alice, 2013. "Bidding in common value fair division games," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79810, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. James Bland & Nikos Nikiforakis, 2013. "Tacit Coordination in Games with Third-Party Externalities," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_19, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    10. Friedrich Heinemann & Martin Kocher, 2013. "Tax compliance under tax regime changes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(2), pages 225-246, April.
    11. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    12. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2014. "Reciprocity and resistance to comprehensive reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 411-428, September.
    13. Englmaier, Florian & Gebhardt, Georg, 2010. "Free Riding in the Lab and in the Field," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 344, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    14. Ulrike Malmendier & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2017. "You Owe Me," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(2), pages 493-526, February.
    15. Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2013. "Peer Effects In Pro-Social Behavior: Social Norms Or Social Preferences?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 548-573, June.
    16. Grüner, Hans Peter & Engelmann, Dirk, 2013. "Tailored Bayesian Mechanisms: Experimental Evidence from Two-Stage Voting Games," CEPR Discussion Papers 9544, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Athanassoglou, Stergios & Brams, Steven J. & Sethuraman, Jay, 2010. "A note on the inefficiency of bidding over the price of a share," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 191-195, November.
    18. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2015. "Norm enforcement in social dilemmas: An experiment with police commissioners," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 74-85.
    19. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    20. Mark Pigors & Bettina Rockenbach, 2016. "Consumer Social Responsibility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(11), pages 3123-3137, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Partnership dissolution; Buy–sell clause; Shotgun clause; Laboratory experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    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:eee:ecolet:v:117:y:2012:i:2:p:394-396. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.