IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eaiere/v16y2019i2d10.1007_s40844-019-00129-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

VCG mechanism for multi-unit auctions and appearance of information: a subject experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Satoshi Takahashi

    (The University of Electro-Communications)

  • Yoichi Izunaga

    (Kanagawa University)

  • Naoki Watanabe

    (Keio University)

Abstract

This paper investigates whether, in multi-unit auctions, different types of appearance of information associated with bidding generate different levels of allocative efficiency and sellers’ revenue when the VCG mechanism is applied to human subject experiments of those auctions. We examine two types of appearance of information about bidders’ valuations of the item given to them and the bids they are asked to submit: One type is unit valuations and the unit bids themselves and the other type is unit valuations and the unit bids multiplied by the number of units. We observed that there was no significant difference on average in either allocative efficiency or the seller’s revenue between these two types of appearance of information. Rather, for each appearance of information, there was a significant difference in subjects’ bidding behavior between different display types of draws of unit valuations. This behavioral difference, however, did not significantly affect allocative efficiency. The performance of the VCG mechanism is robust against display types of those draws as well as against types of appearance of information.

Suggested Citation

  • Satoshi Takahashi & Yoichi Izunaga & Naoki Watanabe, 2019. "VCG mechanism for multi-unit auctions and appearance of information: a subject experiment," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 357-374, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eaiere:v:16:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s40844-019-00129-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40844-019-00129-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40844-019-00129-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40844-019-00129-1?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. Paul Klemperer, 2002. "What Really Matters in Auction Design," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 169-189, Winter.
    2. 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.
    3. Dirk Engelmann & Veronika Grimm, 2009. "Bidding Behaviour in Multi‐Unit Auctions – An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 855-882, April.
    4. Chen, Yan & Takeuchi, Kan, 2010. "Multi-object auctions with package bidding: An experimental comparison of Vickrey and iBEA," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 557-579, March.
    5. Satoshi Takahashi & Yoichi Izunaga & Naoki Watanabe, 2018. "An approximation algorithm for multi-unit auctions: numerical and subject experiments," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(1), pages 95-115.
    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. Satoshi Takahashi & Yoichi Izunaga & Naoki Watanabe, 2022. "An experimental study of VCG mechanism for multi-unit auctions: competing with machine bidders," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 97-117, April.

    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. Anthony M. Kwasnica & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2013. "Multiunit Auctions," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 461-490, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Satoshi Takahashi & Yoichi Izunaga & Naoki Watanabe, 2022. "An experimental study of VCG mechanism for multi-unit auctions: competing with machine bidders," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 97-117, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Martin Sefton & Ping Zhang, 2014. "Divisible-good uniform price auctions: The role of allocation rules and communication among bidders," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments in Financial Economics, volume 16, pages 53-86, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    6. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    7. 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.
    8. Marco Pagnozzi & Krista J. Saral, 2019. "Entry by successful speculators in auctions with resale," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 477-505, June.
    9. Dirk Engelmann & Veronika Grimm, 2009. "Bidding Behaviour in Multi-Unit Auctions - An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 855-882, April.
    10. Takehito Masuda & Ryo Mikami & Toyotaka Sakai & Shigehiro Serizawa & Takuma Wakayama, 2022. "The net effect of advice on strategy-proof mechanisms: an experiment for the Vickrey auction," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 902-941, June.
    11. Chen, Yan & Jiang, Ming & Kesten, Onur & Robin, Stéphane & Zhu, Min, 2018. "Matching in the large: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 295-317.
    12. Pagnozzi, Marco & Saral, Krista Jabs, 2013. "Multi-Object Auctions with Resale: An Experimental Analysis," MPRA Paper 43665, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Pagnozzi, Marco & Saral, Krista J., 2019. "Efficiency in auctions with (failed) resale," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 254-273.
    14. 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.
    15. Martin Sefton & Ping Zhang, 2014. "Divisible-good uniform price auctions: The role of allocation rules and communication among bidders," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Sean M. Collins & R. Mark Isaac & Douglas A. Norton (ed.), Experiments in Financial Economics, volume 16, pages 53-86, Emerald Publishing Ltd.
    16. Atakelty Hailu & Sophie Thoyer, 2010. "What Format for Multi-Unit Multiple-Bid Auctions?," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 189-209, March.
    17. Sophie Thoyer & Atakelty Hailu, 2005. "Multi-Unit Auctions to Allocate Water Scarcity Simulating bidding behaviour with agent based models," Working Papers 05-01, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2005.
    18. Morgan, John, 2001. "Efficiency in auctions: theory and practiceUpdated copies of this paper can be found at www.wws.princeton.edu/~rjmorgan," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 809-838, November.
    19. Bresky, Michal, 2013. "Revenue and efficiency in multi-unit uniform-price auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 205-217.
    20. Takehito Masuda & Toyotaka Sakai & Shigehiro Serizawa & Takuma Wakayama, 2019. "A Strategy-Proof Mechanism Should Be Announced to Be Strategy-Proof: An Experiment for the Vickrey Auction," ISER Discussion Paper 1048, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Multi-unit auction; VCG mechanism; Subject experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:spr:eaiere:v:16:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s40844-019-00129-1. 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.