IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/adl/wpaper/2018-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An indirect evolutionary justification of risk neutral bidding in fair division games

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Pezanis-Christou

    (School of Economics, University of Adelaide)

  • Werner Güth

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods (Bonn) and LUISS (Rome))

Abstract

We justify risk neutral equilibrium bidding in commonly known fair division games with incomplete information in an evolutionary setup by postulating (i) minimal common knowledge assumptions, (ii) optimally responding agents to conjectural beliefs about how others behave and (iii) evolution of conjectural beliefs with fitness measured by expected payoffs. We axiomatically justify the game forms, derive the evolutionary games for first- and second-price fair division and determine the evolutionarily stable conjectures. The latter coincide with equilibrium bidding, irrespectively of the number of bidders, i.e., heuristic belief adaptation implies the same bidding behavior as equilibrium analysis based on common knowledge and counterfactual bids.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Pezanis-Christou & Werner Güth, 2018. "An indirect evolutionary justification of risk neutral bidding in fair division games," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2018-09, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:adl:wpaper:2018-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://media.adelaide.edu.au/economics/papers/doc/wp2018-09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oechssler, Jorg & Riedel, Frank, 2002. "On the Dynamic Foundation of Evolutionary Stability in Continuous Models," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 223-252, December.
    2. de Frutos, M. Angeles, 2000. "Asymmetric Price-Benefits Auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 48-71, October.
    3. Preston McAfee, R., 1992. "Amicable divorce: Dissolving a partnership with simple mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 266-293, April.
    4. Dixon, Huw D. & Somma, Ernesto, 2003. "The evolution of consistent conjectures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 523-536, August.
    5. William Vickrey, 1961. "Counterspeculation, Auctions, And Competitive Sealed Tenders," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 16(1), pages 8-37, March.
    6. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    7. Güth, Werner & Pezanis-Christou, Paul, 2015. "Believing in correlated types in spite of independence: An indirect evolutionary analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-3.
    8. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Hang Wu, 2018. "A non-game-theoretic approach to bidding in first-price and all-pay auctions," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2018-12, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    9. Saran, Rene & Serrano, Roberto, 2014. "Ex-post regret heuristics under private values (I): Fixed and random matching," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 97-111.
    10. Saran, Rene & Serrano, Roberto, 2014. "Ex-post regret heuristics under private values (II): 2×2 games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 112-123.
    11. Benny Moldovanu, 2002. "How to Dissolve a Partnership," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 158(1), pages 66-80, March.
    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. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Hang Wu, 2018. "A non-game-theoretic approach to bidding in first-price and all-pay auctions," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2018-12, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.

    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. Werner Güth & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2017. "An evolutionary analysis of bidding behaviour in fair division games," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2017-12, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    2. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Hang Wu, 2017. "A Naïve Approach to Bidding," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2017-03, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    3. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Hang Wu, 2018. "A non-game-theoretic approach to bidding in first-price and all-pay auctions," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2018-12, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    4. 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.
    5. Van Essen, Matt & Wooders, John, 2016. "Dissolving a partnership dynamically," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 212-241.
    6. Güth, Werner & Pezanis-Christou, Paul, 2015. "Believing in correlated types in spite of independence: An indirect evolutionary analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-3.
    7. 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.
    8. Jianpei Li & Yi Xue & Weixing Wu, 2013. "Partnership dissolution and proprietary information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 495-527, February.
    9. Kittsteiner, Thomas, 2003. "Partnerships and double auctions with interdependent valuations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 54-76, July.
    10. Sundström, David, 2016. "On Specification and Inference in the Econometrics of Public Procurement," Umeå Economic Studies 931, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    11. Condorelli, Daniele, 2013. "Market and non-market mechanisms for the optimal allocation of scarce resources," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 582-591.
    12. Estrella Alonso & Joaquin Sanchez-Soriano & Juan Tejada, 2015. "A parametric family of two ranked objects auctions: equilibria and associated risk," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 141-160, February.
    13. Ornelas, Emanuel & Turner, John L., 2007. "Efficient dissolution of partnerships and the structure of control," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 187-199, July.
    14. Li, Jianpei, 2009. "Partnership Dissolution and Proprietary Information," MPRA Paper 12505, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Estrella Alonso & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano & Juan Tejada, 2020. "Mixed Mechanisms for Auctioning Ranked Items," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-26, December.
    16. M. Yenmez, 2015. "Incentive compatible market design with applications," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(3), pages 543-569, August.
    17. Anil Chorppath & Tansu Alpcan & Holger Boche, 2015. "Adversarial Behavior in Network Games," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 26-64, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Çağıl Koçyiğit & Garud Iyengar & Daniel Kuhn & Wolfram Wiesemann, 2020. "Distributionally Robust Mechanism Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 159-189, January.
    20. Fritz Helmedag, 2017. "Marktmacht in Aktion: Unterschiede zwischen Bietverfahren beim Verkauf und Einkauf," Chemnitz Economic Papers 008, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology, revised Jul 2017.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:adl:wpaper:2018-09. 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: Qazi Haque (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decadau.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.