IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v16y2013i4p511-545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do core-selecting Combinatorial Clock Auctions always lead to high efficiency? An experimental analysis of spectrum auction designs

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Bichler
  • Pasha Shabalin
  • Jürgen Wolf

Abstract

For many years the Simultaneous Multi-Round Auction (SMRA) has been the primary auction design for spectrum sales worldwide. Recently, the core-selecting Combinatorial Clock Auction (CCA) has been used as an alternative to the SMRA in a number of countries promising strong incentives for truthful bidding and high efficiency as a result. We analyze the efficiency and auctioneer revenue of the CCA in comparison to SMRA and examine bidding behavior in both formats. The experiments are based on two value models, which resemble single- and multiband spectrum sales in the field. Such applications often allow for thousands of possible bundles. Bidders in the CCA submitted bids for only a fraction of all bundles with a positive valuation. Bundles were selected based on synergies and payoff after the primary bid rounds. As a consequence, we found efficiency of the CCA to be significantly lower than that of SMRA in the multi-band value model and auctioneer revenue of the CCA to be lower in both value models. In addition, we characterize several properties of the auction format, which result from the two-stage design and the payment and activity rules. Copyright Economic Science Association 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Bichler & Pasha Shabalin & Jürgen Wolf, 2013. "Do core-selecting Combinatorial Clock Auctions always lead to high efficiency? An experimental analysis of spectrum auction designs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 511-545, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:16:y:2013:i:4:p:511-545
    DOI: 10.1007/s10683-013-9350-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10683-013-9350-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10683-013-9350-3?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. 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.
    2. Paul Milgrom, 2000. "Putting Auction Theory to Work: The Simultaneous Ascending Auction," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(2), pages 245-272, April.
    3. Moldovanu, Benny & Ewerhart II, Christian, 2001. "The German UMTS Design: Insights From Multi-Object Auction Theory," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-05, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    4. Aytek Erdil & Paul Klemperer, 2010. "A New Payment Rule for Core-Selecting Package Auctions," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(2-3), pages 537-547, 04-05.
    5. Cramton, Peter & Stoft, Steven, 2007. "Why We Need to Stick with Uniform-Price Auctions in Electricity Markets," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 26-37.
    6. Gul, Faruk & Stacchetti, Ennio, 2000. "The English Auction with Differentiated Commodities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 66-95, May.
    7. Bajari, Patrick & Yeo, Jungwon, 2009. "Auction design and tacit collusion in FCC spectrum auctions," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 90-100, June.
    8. Datta, Somnath & Satten, Glen A., 2005. "Rank-Sum Tests for Clustered Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 100, pages 908-915, September.
    9. Klemperer, Paul, 2002. "How (not) to run auctions: The European 3G telecom auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 829-845, May.
    10. Gul, Faruk & Stacchetti, Ennio, 1999. "Walrasian Equilibrium with Gross Substitutes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 95-124, July.
    11. Sano, Ryuji, 2012. "Non-bidding equilibrium in an ascending core-selecting auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 637-650.
    12. Peter Cramton, 2008. "A Review of the L-Band Auction," Papers of Peter Cramton 08rlba, University of Maryland, Department of Economics - Peter Cramton, revised 2008.
    13. Vitali Gretschko & Stephan Knapek & Achim Wambach, 2012. "Strategic Complexities in the Combinatorial Clock Auction," CESifo Working Paper Series 3983, CESifo.
    14. Bichler, Martin & Schneider, Stefan & Guler, Kemal & Sayal, Mehmet, 2011. "Compact bidding languages and supplier selection for markets with economies of scale and scope," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 67-77, October.
    15. Robert W. Day & S. Raghavan, 2007. "Fair Payments for Efficient Allocations in Public Sector Combinatorial Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(9), pages 1389-1406, September.
    16. Jeffrey S. Banks & John O. Ledyard & David P. Porter, 1989. "Allocating Uncertain and Unresponsive Resources: An Experimental Approach," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(1), pages 1-25, Spring.
    17. Christoph Brunner & Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & John O. Ledyard, 2010. "An Experimental Test of Flexible Combinatorial Spectrum Auction Formats," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 39-57, February.
    18. Tobias Scheffel & Georg Ziegler & Martin Bichler, 2012. "On the impact of package selection in combinatorial auctions: an experimental study in the context of spectrum auction design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(4), pages 667-692, December.
    19. Morgan John & Steiglitz Ken & Reis George, 2003. "The Spite Motive and Equilibrium Behavior in Auctions," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-25, April.
    20. Stefan Seifert & Karl‐Martin Ehrhart, 2005. "Design of the 3G Spectrum Auctions in the UK and Germany: An Experimental Investigation," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 6(2), pages 229-248, May.
    21. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2010. "Hierarchical package bidding: A paper & pencil combinatorial auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 146-169, September.
    22. Nisan, Noam & Segal, Ilya, 2006. "The communication requirements of efficient allocations and supporting prices," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 192-224, July.
    23. Sano, Ryuji, 2011. "Incentives in core-selecting auctions with single-minded bidders," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 602-606, June.
    24. Peter Cramton, 2009. "Auctioning the Digital Dividend," Papers of Peter Cramton 09add, University of Maryland, Department of Economics - Peter Cramton, revised 2009.
    25. John O. Ledyard & David Porter & Antonio Rangel, 1997. "Experiments Testing Multiobject Allocation Mechanisms," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 639-675, September.
    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. Bichler, Martin & Goeree, Jacob K., 2017. "Frontiers in spectrum auction design," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 372-391.
    2. Martin Bichler & Pasha Shabalin & Georg Ziegler, 2013. "Efficiency with Linear Prices? A Game-Theoretical and Computational Analysis of the Combinatorial Clock Auction," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 394-417, June.
    3. Alexander Teytelboym & Shengwu Li & Scott Duke Kominers & Mohammad Akbarpour & Piotr Dworczak, 2021. "Discovering Auctions: Contributions of Paul Milgrom and Robert Wilson," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(3), pages 709-750, July.
    4. Chernomaz, Kirill & Levin, Dan, 2012. "Efficiency and synergy in a multi-unit auction with and without package bidding: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 611-635.
    5. Munro, David R. & Rassenti, Stephen J., 2019. "Combinatorial clock auctions: Price direction and performance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 195-217.
    6. Kaplan, Todd R. & Zamir, Shmuel, 2015. "Advances in Auctions," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    7. Christian Kroemer & Martin Bichler & Andor Goetzendorff, 2016. "(Un)expected Bidder Behavior in Spectrum Auctions: About Inconsistent Bidding and Its Impact on Efficiency in the Combinatorial Clock Auction," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 31-63, January.
    8. Bichler, Martin & Gretschko, Vitali & Janssen, Maarten, 2017. "Bargaining in spectrum auctions: A review of the German auction in 2015," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 325-340.
    9. Tobias Scheffel & Georg Ziegler & Martin Bichler, 2012. "On the impact of package selection in combinatorial auctions: an experimental study in the context of spectrum auction design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(4), pages 667-692, December.
    10. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    11. Nicolas C. Bedard & Jacob K. Goeree & Philippos Louis & Jingjing Zhang, 2020. "The Favored but Flawed Simultaneous Multiple-Round Auction," Working Paper Series 2020/03, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    12. Lawrence M. Ausubel, 2006. "An Efficient Dynamic Auction for Heterogeneous Commodities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 602-629, June.
    13. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Paul Milgrom, 2004. "Ascending Proxy Auctions," Discussion Papers 03-035, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    14. Paul Milgrom, 2009. "Assignment Messages and Exchanges," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 95-113, August.
    15. Martin Bichler & Paul Milgrom & Gregor Schwarz, 2023. "Taming the Communication and Computation Complexity of Combinatorial Auctions: The FUEL Bid Language," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 2217-2238, April.
    16. Janssen, Maarten & Karamychev, Vladimir, 2016. "Spiteful bidding and gaming in combinatorial clock auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 186-207.
    17. , K. & ,, 2016. "On the impossibility of core-selecting auctions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(1), January.
    18. Ausubel Lawrence M & Milgrom Paul R, 2002. "Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-44, August.
    19. Kazumori, Eiichiro & Belch, Yaakov, 2019. "t-Tree: The Tokyo toolbox for large-scale combinatorial auction experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    20. Blumrosen, Liad & Nisan, Noam, 2010. "Informational limitations of ascending combinatorial auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(3), pages 1203-1223, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auctions; Lab experiments; Group behavior; Individual behavior; C91; C92; D44;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions

    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:kap:expeco:v:16:y:2013:i:4:p:511-545. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.