IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v100y2018i5p1407-1426..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information Access, Conservation Practice Choice, and Rent Seeking in Conservation Procurement Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Simanti Banerjee
  • Marc N Conte

Abstract

Existing research emphasizes the sensitivity of conservation auction performance and bidder behavior to auction design choices, as these auctions are not incentive compatible, meaning rent seeking must be controlled. Procuring agencies must decide how to provide bidders with information about the environmental quality of different conservation practices to manage the trade-off between an increased probability of selecting the optimal practice and increased rent-seeking behavior associated with this information. We use an induced-value laboratory experiment to explore how access to quality information and variation in the bid-submission protocol can best be combined to improve auction performance. We find that the auction performs best when a bid-menu format, in which participants submit bids for all their practices, is combined with information about the environmental quality rank of available conservation practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Simanti Banerjee & Marc N Conte, 2018. "Information Access, Conservation Practice Choice, and Rent Seeking in Conservation Procurement Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(5), pages 1407-1426.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:100:y:2018:i:5:p:1407-1426.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aay064
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Marc N. Conte & Robert Griffin, 2019. "Private Benefits of Conservation and Procurement Auction Performance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 759-790, July.
    2. Wallander, Steven & Paul, Laura A. & Ferraro, Paul J. & Messer, Kent D. & Iovanna, Richard, 2023. "Informational nudges in conservation auctions: A field experiment with U.S. farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Pengfei Liu, 2021. "Balancing Cost Effectiveness and Incentive Properties in Conservation Auctions: Experimental Evidence from Three Multi-award Reverse Auction Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(3), pages 417-451, March.
    4. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2023. "Assessing the performance of agglomeration bonus in budget-constrained conservation auctions," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334544, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    5. Chi Nguyen & Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann & Nick Hanley, 2024. "Landscape‐level determinants of the performance of an agglomeration bonus in conservation auctions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 592-616, June.
    6. Simanti Banerjee & Timothy N. Cason & Frans P. de Vries & Nick Hanley, 2021. "Spatial Coordination and Joint Bidding in Conservation Auctions," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(5), pages 1013-1049.
    7. Harriet Toto Olita & Md. Sayed Iftekhar & Steven G. M. Schilizzi, 2023. "Optimizing contract allocation for risky conservation tenders," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 25(1), pages 63-85, January.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:100:y:2018:i:5:p:1407-1426.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.