Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-07T09:48:30.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Package Auctions and Combinatorial Bidding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Paul Milgrom
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

In chapter 7, we found that multi-object auctions that promote uniform prices raise new problems not found in single item auctions. One is that if the bidders do not regard the goods as substitutes, then market clearing prices can fail to exist. When goods are not substitutes, the conception of auctions as mechanisms to identify market-clearing prices is fundamentally misguided. A second problem is that even when goods are substitutes, if the auction identifies uniform prices for each kind of good, there are generally incentives for bidders to bid for fewer units than they really want (demand reduction). That behavior can produce both inefficient outcomes and low revenue. So, even in those cases where the search for market clearing prices is not logically doomed to fail, mechanisms that might find market clearing prices when bidders are naïve may still perform poorly when bidders are sophisticated and strategic.

In this chapter, we explore another set of problems. When the auctioneer sells one indivisible good of fixed characteristics, she faces no question about how to package the goods offered for sale. If the characteristics of the good vary or if multiple buyers can divide it, we encounter that complex decision.

This decision can be complicated even in mundane sales, such as the sale of a farm estate after the death of a farmer. Although the whole estate could be sold as a single entity, it could also be divided into smaller pieces for sale to individual bidders with varying demands.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ausubel, Lawrence and Paul Milgrom (2001). “System and Method for a Dynamic Auction with Package Bidding.” Patent Cooperation Treaty patent application
Ausubel, Lawrence and Milgrom, Paul (2002). “Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding.” Frontiers of Theoretical Economics 1(1): Article 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S., Ledyard, John O. and Porter, David P. (1989). “Allocating Uncertain and Unresponsive Resources: An Experimental Approach.” Rand Journal of Economics 20: 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernheim, Douglas B. and Whinston, Michael (1986). “Menu Auctions, Resource Allocation and Economic Influence.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 101: 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Paul and Plott, Charles (1996). “A Binary Conflict Ascending Price (Bicap) Mechanism for the Decentralized Allocation of the Right to Use Railroad Tracks.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 14: 857–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantillon, Estelle and Martin Pesendorfer (2003). “Combination Bidding in Multi-Unit Auctions.” Working paper
Cassady, Ralph (1967). Auctions and Auctioneering: Berkeley, University of California Press
Cybernomics (2000). “An Experimental Comparison of the Simultaneous Multiple Round Auction and the Cra Combinatorial Auction.” http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/conferences/combin2000/releases/98540191.pdf
Epstein, Refael, Henríquez, Lysette, Catalàn, Jaime, Weintraub, Gabriel Y., and Martínez, Cristián (2002). “A Combinational Auction Improves School Meals in Chile.” Interfaces 32(6): 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohner, Gail, John Rich, Ed Ng, Grant Reed, Andrew Davenport, Jayant Kalagnanam, Ho Soo Lee and Chae An (2002). “Combinatorial and Quantity Discount Procurement Auctions with Mutual Benefits at Mars, Incorporated.” Working Paper, IBM Watson Labs Research Center
Ledyard, John O., Porter, David P. and Rangel, Antonio (1997). “Experiments Testing Multi-Object Allocation Mechanisms.” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 6: 639–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Daniel, O'Callaghan, Liadan and Shoham, Yoav (2002). “Truth Revelation in Approximately Efficient Combinatorial Auctions.” Journal of the ACM 49(5): 577–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisan, Noam (2000). “Bidding and Allocation in Combinatorial Auctions.” http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/∼noam/mkts.htmlCrossRef
Parkes, David and Ungar, Lyle (2000). “Iterative Combinatorial Auctions: Theory and Practice.” Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence: AAAI. 74–81Google Scholar
Parkes, David, Lyle Ungar and David Foster (1999). “Accounting for Cognitive Costs in on-Line Auction Design.” Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce. P. Noriega and C. Sierra. Heidelberg:, Springer-VerlagCrossRef
Rassenti, S. J., , R. L. Bulfin and Smith, Vernon (1982). “A Combinatorial Auction Mechanism for Airport Time Slot Allocation.” Bell Journal of Economics XIII: 402–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reny, Philip (1999). “On the Existence of Pure and Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibria in Discontinuous Games.” Econometrica 67(5): 1029–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothkopf, Michael, Pekec, Aleksandar and Harstad, Ronald (1998). “Computationally Manageable Combinatorial Auctions.” Management Science 44: 1131–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royden, H. L. (1968). Real Analysis. New York:, Macmillan
Simon, Leo K. and Zame, William R. (1990). “Discontinuous Games and Endogenous Sharing Rules.” Econometrica 58: 861–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topkis, Donald (1978). “Minimizing a Submodular Function on a Lattice.” Operations Research 26: 305–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topkis, Donald (1998). Supermodularity and Complementarity: Princeton University Press
Weintraub, Gabriel Y. (2003). “There is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: Analysis of the Combinatorial Auction for School Meals in Chile.” Stanford University, Working paper
Yokoo, Makoto, Yuko Sakurai and Shigeo Matsubara (2000). “The Effect of False-Name Declarations in Mechanism Design: Towards Collective Decision Making on the Internet.” Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems: 146–153CrossRef

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×