IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mos/moswps/2017-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Double Auction Market Trading and Income Inequality: An initial investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Brewer
  • Anmol Ratan

Abstract

We examine robot trading in two double auction environments with identical aggregate supply and demand curves but different individual agent supply and demand curves. The Law of Supply and Demand, based on the aggregate curves, predicts the same competitive equilibrium price and quantity for the two treatments. The individual supply and demand curves relative to the competitive equilibrium price predict individual profits. The first treatment is constructed so that in competitive equilibrium the resulting incomes are equal for all agents. The second treatment is constructed to yield substantial income inequality in competitive equilibrium. The third and fourth treatments change the strategy of all but one trader on each side of the market to a “sniper” strategy that is more aggressive. While we find that the outcomes of the robot trading approximately match the theoretical predictions, we also find noisy trading produces inequality in the first treatment, and a reduction of inequality in the second treatment. In markets populated by snipers, the low realized efficiency reduces the level of profits, and profits are also more skewed than that predicted by the neoclassical theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Brewer & Anmol Ratan, 2017. "Double Auction Market Trading and Income Inequality: An initial investigation," Monash Economics Working Papers 12-17, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:mos:moswps:2017-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1404223/thedoubleactionbrewerratan.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vernon L. Smith, 1965. "Experimental Auction Markets and the Walrasian Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(4), pages 387-387.
    2. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 4, March.
    3. Friedman, Daniel, 1984. "On the Efficiency of Experimental Double Auction Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(1), pages 60-72, March.
    4. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 2, March.
    5. Smith, Vernon L, 1976. "Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 274-279, May.
    6. Gode, Dhananjay K & Sunder, Shyam, 1993. "Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 119-137, February.
    7. Vernon L. Smith, 1962. "An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(2), pages 111-111.
    8. Reiter, Stanley, 1977. "Information and Performance in the (New)2 Welfare Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(1), pages 226-234, February.
    9. Durham, Yvonne & Hirshleifer, Jack & Smith, Vernon L., 2008. "The Paradox of Power," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 16, pages 127-137, Elsevier.
    10. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 6, March.
    11. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    12. Jack Hirshleifer, 1995. "Experimental Tests of the Paradox of Power," UCLA Economics Working Papers 741, UCLA Department of Economics.
    13. Isaac, R Mark & Plott, Charles R, 1981. "Price Controls and the Behavior of Auction Markets: An Experimental Examination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 448-459, June.
    14. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 7, March.
    15. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1, March.
    16. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 3, March.
    17. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 8, March.
    18. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 5, March.
    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. Sean Crockett, 2013. "Price Dynamics In General Equilibrium Experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 421-438, July.
    2. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    3. Giuseppe Attanasi & Samuele Centorrino & Elena Manzoni, 2020. "Zero-Intelligence vs. Human Agents: An Experimental Analysis of the Efficiency of Double Auctions and Over-the-Counter Markets of Varying Sizes," Working Papers 05/2020, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    4. Dave Cliff, 2021. "BBE: Simulating the Microstructural Dynamics of an In-Play Betting Exchange via Agent-Based Modelling," Papers 2105.08310, arXiv.org.
    5. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Centorrino, Samuele & Moscati, Ivan, 2016. "Over-the-counter markets vs. double auctions: A comparative experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 22-35.
    6. Nicholas, Aaron, 2022. "Invisible Hand, invisible morals: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 395-418.
    7. Jason Shachat & Anand Srinivasan, 2022. "Informational Price Cascades and Non-Aggregation of Asymmetric Information in Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 388-407, November.
    8. J Dustin Tracy & Kevin A James & Hillard Kaplan & Stephen Rassenti, 2021. "An investigation of health insurance policy and behavior in a virtual environment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-26, April.
    9. Stranlund, John K. & Murphy, James J. & Spraggon, John M., 2014. "Price controls and banking in emissions trading: An experimental evaluation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 71-86.
    10. Eric M. Aldrich & Kristian López Vargas, 2020. "Experiments in high-frequency trading: comparing two market institutions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 322-352, June.
    11. Benjamin J. Gillen & Masayoshi Hirota & Ming Hsu & Charles R. Plott & Brian W. Rogers, 2021. "Divergence and convergence in Scarf cycle environments: experiments and predictability in the dynamics of general equilibrium systems," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(3), pages 1033-1084, April.
    12. Carraro, Carlo & De Cian, Enrica & Nicita, Lea & Massetti, Emanuele & Verdolini, Elena, 2010. "Environmental Policy and Technical Change: A Survey," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 4(2), pages 163-219, October.
    13. Teemu Pennanen, 2020. "Efficient allocations in double auction markets," Papers 2001.02071, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2021.
    14. Bulent Guler & Volodymyr Lugovskyy & Daniela Puzzello & Steven Tucker, 2021. "Trading Institutions in Experimental Asset Markets: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers in Economics 21/15, University of Waikato.
    15. John Dickhaut & Shengle Lin & David Porter & Vernon L. Smith, 2010. "Durability, Re-trading and Market Performance," Working Papers 10-01, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    16. David F. Perkis & Timothy N. Cason & Wallace E. Tyner, 2016. "An Experimental Investigation of Hard and Soft Price Ceilings in Emissions Permit Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 703-718, April.
    17. Dave Cliff, 2021. "Parameterised-Response Zero-Intelligence Traders," Papers 2103.11341, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    18. Markstädter, Andreas & Keser, Claudia, 2014. "Informational Asymmetries in Laboratory Asset Markets with State Dependent Fundamentals," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100359, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Thieme, Lutz & Winkelhake, Olaf & Hartmann, Ulrich, 2014. "Fairness als universelle Norm? Empirische Evidenz ohne Manna [Fairness as a universal norm? Empiric evidence without manna]," Working Papers of the European Institute for Socioeconomics 12, European Institute for Socioeconomics (EIS), Saarbrücken.
    20. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.

    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:mos:moswps:2017-12. 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: Simon Angus (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dxmonau.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.