IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ssb/dispap/328.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Voting rules and endogenous trading institutions: An experimental study

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper reports on recurring laboratory elections in which buyers and sellers choose institutional rules to govern a subsequent trading round. The bid auction (buyers propose prices), offer auction (sellers suggest prices) and double auction (both trader types initiate price quotes) make up the electoral candidates. Both plurality rule and approval voting are used as vote-counting schemes. The former allows each trader to vote for, at most, one auction, whereas approval voting permits voters to either abstain or to vote for one, two or all three institutional alternatives. The main result is threefold. First, plurality rule induces a Duverger effect in the sense that only the bid and offer auctions emerge as viable auctions. Approval voting instead leads to close three-way races with each of the three auctions winning approximately one third of the elections. Second, buyers (sellers) in the plurality-rule sessions concordantly vote for the bid (offer) auction. Approval-voting behavior is comparatively more heterogeneous. Third, bid-auction prices are significantly lower than double-auction prices, which again are significantly below offer-auction prices.

Suggested Citation

  • Morten Søberg, 2002. "Voting rules and endogenous trading institutions: An experimental study," Discussion Papers 328, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssb:dispap:328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp-328-aug02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Forsythe, Robert & Rietz, Thomas & Myerson, Roger & Weber, Robert, 1996. "An Experimental Study of Voting Rules and Polls in Three-Candidate Elections," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 355-383.
    2. Friedman,Daniel & Sunder,Shyam, 1994. "Experimental Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521456821, September.
    3. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith, 1978. "An Experimental Examination of Two Exchange Institutions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 45(1), pages 133-153.
    4. Brams, Steven J & Nagel, Jack H, 1991. "Approval Voting in Practice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 71(1-2), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Jonathan Levin & Barry Nalebuff, 1995. "An Introduction to Vote-Counting Schemes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 3-26, Winter.
    6. Jon Ketcham & Vernon L. Smith & Arlington W. Williams, 1984. "A Comparison of Posted-Offer and Double-Auction Pricing Institutions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(4), pages 595-614.
    7. Roger B. Myerson, 1995. "Analysis of Democratic Institutions: Structure, Conduct and Performance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 77-89, Winter.
    8. Vernon L. Smith, 1964. "Effect of Market Organization on Competitive Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 78(2), pages 181-201.
    9. Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 1988. "Market behavior in bid, offer, and double auctions : A Reexmination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 301-314, April.
    10. Roger B. Myerson, 1994. "Analysis of Democratic Institutions: Structure," Discussion Papers 1095, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    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. Søberg, Martin, 2003. "Voting rules and endogenous trading institutions: An experimental study," Memorandum 17/2002, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    2. Bottino, Eleonora & García-Muñoz, Teresa & Goddio, Cintia & Kujal, Praveen, 2016. "What is a fair wage? Reference points, entitlements and gift exchange," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 125-135.
    3. Søberg, Morten, 2003. "A laboratory stress-test of bid, double and offer auctions," Memorandum 05/2002, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    4. Morten Søberg, 2002. "A laboratory stress-test of bid, double and offer auctions," Discussion Papers 327, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    5. Normann, Hans-Theo, 2010. "Experimentelle Ökonomik für die Wettbewerbspolitik," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 06, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    6. Costel Andonie & Daniel Diermeier, 2022. "Electoral Institutions with impressionable voters," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(3), pages 683-733, October.
    7. Nuzzo, Simone & Morone, Andrea, 2017. "Asset markets in the lab: A literature review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 42-50.
    8. Fehr, Ernst & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Riedl, Arno, 1998. "Gift exchange and reciprocity in competitive experimental markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-34, January.
    9. Brannon, James I. & Gorman, Michael F., 2002. "The effects of information costs on search and convergence in experimental markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 375-390, April.
    10. Barbara Ikica & Simon Jantschgi & Heinrich H. Nax & Diego G. Nuñez Duran & Bary S. R. Pradelski, 2023. "Competitive Market Behavior: Convergence And Asymmetry In The Experimental Double Auction," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1087-1126, August.
    11. Igerseim, Herrade & Baujard, Antoinette & Laslier, Jean-François, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 151-189, Mars-Juin.
    12. Philippe De Donder & Jean Hindriks, 1998. "The political economy of targeting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 177-200, April.
    13. Morone, Andrea & Nuzzo, Simone, 2015. "Market Efficiency, Trading Institutions and Information Mirages: evidence from an experimental asset market," MPRA Paper 67448, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Charles Plott, 2014. "Public choice and the development of modern laboratory experimental methods in economics and political science," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 331-353, December.
    15. Fehr, Ernst & Kirchler, Erich & Weichbold, Andreas & Gächter, Simon, 1998. "When Social Norms Overpower Competition: Gift Exchange in Experimental Labor Markets," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(2), pages 324-351, April.
    16. Cason, Timothy N. & Friedman, Daniel & Milam, Garrett H., 2003. "Bargaining versus posted price competition in customer markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 223-251, February.
    17. Collins, Sean M. & James, Duncan & Servátka, Maroš & Vadovič, Radovan, 2021. "Attainment of equilibrium via Marshallian path adjustment: Queueing and buyer determinism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 94-106.
    18. Douglas D. Davis & Oleg Korenok, 2009. "Posted Offer Markets In Near‐Continuous Time: An Experimental Investigation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 47(3), pages 449-466, July.
    19. Brennan, Geoffrey & Hamlin, Alan, 1998. "Expressive Voting and Electoral Equilibrium," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(1-2), pages 149-175, April.
    20. Morais, Danielle C. & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2012. "Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 42-52, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Plurality rule; approval voting; sequential auctions; experimental economics.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    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:ssb:dispap:328. 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: L Maasø (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbgvno.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.