IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v2y2000i3p173-195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Market-Based Mechanism for Allocating Space Shuttle Secondary Payload Priority

Author

Listed:
  • John Ledyard
  • David Porter
  • Randii Wessen

Abstract

This is an investigation into the design of a market-based process to replace NASA's current committee process for allocating Shuttle secondary payload resources (lockers, Watts and crew). The market-based process allocates budgets of tokens to NASA internal organizations that in turn use the budget to bid for priority for their middeck payloads. The scheduling algorithm selects payloads by priority class and maximizes the number of tokens bid to determine a manifest. The results of a number of controlled experiments show that such a system tends to allocate resources more efficiently by guiding participants to make resource and payload tradeoffs. Most participants were able to improve their position over NASA's current ranking system. Furthermore, those that are better off make large improvements while the few that do worse have relatively small losses. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Suggested Citation

  • John Ledyard & David Porter & Randii Wessen, 2000. "A Market-Based Mechanism for Allocating Space Shuttle Secondary Payload Priority," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(3), pages 173-195, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:2:y:2000:i:3:p:173-195
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1009900310537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1009900310537
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1009900310537?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. Avi Wohl, 1997. "The Feasibility of an Index-Contingent Trading Mechanism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 112-121, January.
    2. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    3. R. Preston McAfee & John McMillan, 1996. "Analyzing the Airwaves Auction," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 159-175, Winter.
    4. S.J. Rassenti & V.L. Smith & R.L. Bulfin, 1982. "A Combinatorial Auction Mechanism for Airport Time Slot Allocation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 402-417, Autumn.
    5. Plott, Charles R., 1989. "An updated review of industrial organization: Applications of experimental methods," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 1109-1176, Elsevier.
    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. Hans‐Theo Normann & Roberto Ricciuti, 2009. "Laboratory Experiments For Economic Policy Making," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 407-432, July.
    2. Jarman, Felix & Meisner, Vincent, 2017. "Ex-post optimal knapsack procurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 35-63.
    3. Paul Healy & John Ledyard & Charles Noussair & Harley Thronson & Peter Ulrich & Giulio Varsi, 2007. "Contracting inside an organization: An experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 143-167, June.
    4. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    5. Guikema, Seth, 2007. "A proposal for including technical failure risk in market-based resource reallocation for spacecraft design," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(5), pages 653-659.
    6. Andrew Reeson & Karel Nolles, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Applications to Environmental Policy," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-03, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

    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. Sayee Srinivasan, 2002. "Trading Portfolios Electronically – An Experimental Approach," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 39-71, March.
    2. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Micromotives in Global Environmental Policy," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 47-61, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Ensthaler, Ludwig & Huck, Steffen & Leutgeb, Johannes, 2020. "Games played through agents in the laboratory — a test of Prat & Rustichini's model," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 119, pages 30-55.
    7. Ledyard, John O., "undated". "Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research," Working Papers 861, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    8. William E. Walsh & Michael P. Wellman, 1999. "Efficiency and Equilibrium in Task Allocation Economics with Hierarchical Dependencies," Working Papers 99-07-049, Santa Fe Institute.
    9. Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "A behavioral mindset on environment policy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 355-369.
    10. 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.
    11. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher & Elena Tougareva, "undated". "Do High Stakes and Competition Undermine Fairness? Evidence from Russia," IEW - Working Papers 120, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    12. Martin Dufwenberg & Uri Gneezy & Jacob Goeree & Rosemarie Nagel, 2007. "Price floors and competition," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 211-224, October.
    13. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata & Nikiforakis, Nikos, 2011. "Can real-effort investments inhibit the convergence of experimental markets?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 97-103, January.
    14. Régis Deloche, 1995. "Expérimentation, science économique et théorie des jeux : "Nunc est bibendum" ," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 46(3), pages 951-960.
    15. Ming Fan & Jan Stallaert & Andrew B. Whinston, 2003. "Decentralized Mechanism Design for Supply Chain Organizations Using an Auction Market," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22, March.
    16. Hans‐Theo Normann & Roberto Ricciuti, 2009. "Laboratory Experiments For Economic Policy Making," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 407-432, July.
    17. Joni L. Jones & Gary J. Koehler, 2005. "A Heuristic for Winner Determination in Rule-Based Combinatorial Auctions," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 475-489, November.
    18. Tuomas Sandholm & Subhash Suri & Andrew Gilpin & David Levine, 2005. "CABOB: A Fast Optimal Algorithm for Winner Determination in Combinatorial Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 374-390, March.
    19. Patrick Harvey & W. David Walls, 2003. "Laboratory markets in counterfeit goods: Hong Kong versus Las Vegas," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(14), pages 883-887.
    20. Nicolas Gruyer & Nathalie Lenoir, 2003. "Auctioning airport slots (?)," Economics Working Papers 01, LEEA (air transport economics laboratory), ENAC (french national civil aviation school).

    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:2:y:2000:i:3:p:173-195. 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.