Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T05:57:33.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Preventing collusion among firms in auctions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2009

Timothy C. Salmon
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor in Economics, Florida State University
Maarten Janssen
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Collusion among bidders in auctions is a serious concern for those interested in designing procedures to allocate public assets whether the goal of the process is efficiency or revenue maximisation. In either case, bidders acting collusively can seriously impair an auctioneer's ability to accomplish their goal. There has been a wide variety of examples of collusion discussed in the economic literature, including collusive bidding for school milk contracts (Pesendorfer, 2000), in cattle auctions (Phillips, Menkhaus and Coatney, 2001), in timber auctions (Baldwin, Marshall and Richard, 1997) and, of course, in spectrum auctions, which will be the focus of this study. We will present a brief survey of recent literature on collusion problems mostly in ascending auctions and then go on to discuss the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) experience in dealing with collusion in their auctions as a case study in how the lessons from this literature can be applied.

We will be discussing both ascending and sealed-bid auction formats and the incentives for collusion embedded in each, but the focus will be on ascending auctions. Ascending auctions are the primary focus of the literature on collusion in auctions owing to the fact that ascending auctions are more susceptible to ‘in-auction’ collusion than sealed-bid auctions. The term in-auction collusion is used to refer to collusion that can emerge and be enforced inside a single auction.

Type
Chapter
Information
Auctioning Public Assets
Analysis and Alternatives
, pp. 80 - 107
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

Albano, G., F. Germano and S. Lovo 2001, ‘On some collusive and signaling equilibria in ascending auctions for multiple objects’, Working Paper, University College London
Anton, J. and Yao, D. 1992, ‘Coordination of split award auctions’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 681–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausubel, L. 2002, ‘An efficient ascending-bid auction for multiple objects’, mimeo, University of Maryland
Ausubel, L. and P. Cramton 2002, ‘Demand reduction and inefficiency in multi-unit auctions’, Working Paper, University of Maryland
Ausubel, L. and P. Milgrom 2001, ‘Ascending auctions with package bidding’, Working Paper, Stanford University
Ausubel, L. and J. Schwartz 1999, ‘The ascending auction paradox’, mimeo, University of Maryland
Baldwin, L., Marshall, R. and Richard, J. 1997, ‘Bidder collusion at forest service timber sales’, Journal of Political Economy 105: 657–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. and Klemperer, P. 2002, ‘The biggest auction ever’, Economic Journal 112: 74–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brusco, S. and G. Lopomo 1999, ‘Collusion via signalling in open ascending auctions with multiple objects and complementarities’, Working Paper, Stern School of Business, New York University
Cramton, P. and Schwartz, J. 2000, ‘Collusive bidding: lessons from the FCC spectrum auctions’, Journal of Regulatory Economics 17: 229–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demange, G., Gale, D. and Sotomayor, M. 1986, ‘Multi-item auctions’, Journal of Political Economy 94: 863–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelbrecht-Wiggans, R. and C. Kahn 1999, ‘Low revenue equilibria in simultaneous auctions’, Working Paper, University of Illinois
Fudenberg, D. and Maskin, E. 1986, ‘The folk theorem in repeated games with discounting or with incomplete information’, Econometrica 54: 533–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, V. and D. Engelmann 2001, ‘Bidding behavior in multi-unit auctions – an experimental investigation’, mimeo, Humboldt University, Berlin
Grimm, V., F. Riedel and E. Wolfstetter 2001, ‘Low price equilibrium in multi-unit auctions: the GSM spectrum auction in Germany’, Working Paper, Humboldt University, Berlin
Isaac, R. and S. Reynolds 2002, ‘Two or four firms: does it matter?’, in C. Holt and I. Mark (eds.), Research in Experimental Economics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Mass
Isaac, R., T. Salmon and A. Zillante 2002, ‘A theory of jump bidding in ascending auctions’, Working Paper, Florida State University
Kagel, J. and Levin, D. 2001, ‘Behavior in multi-unit demand auctions: experiments with uniform price and dynamic vickrey auctions’, Econometrica 69: 413–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J., S. Kinross and D. Levin 2001, ‘Comparing efficient multi-object auction institutions’, mimeo, Ohio State University
Klemperer, P. 2002a, ‘What really matters in auction design’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 16: 169–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemperer P. 2002b, ‘Using and abusing auction theory: lessons from auction design’, Working Paper, Oxford University
Kwasnica, A. and K. Sherstyuk 2002, ‘Collusion via signaling in multi-unit auctions with complementarities: an experimental test’, Working Paper, Pennsylvania State University
Manelli, A., M. Sefton and B. Wilner 2000, ‘Multi-unit auctions: a comparison of static and dynamic mechanisms’, Working Paper, Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, University of Nottingham
Milgrom, P. 2000, ‘Putting auction theory to work: the simultaneous ascending auction’, Journal of Political Economy 108: 245–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, P. and Weber, R. 1982, ‘A theory of auctions and competitive bidding’, Econometrica 50: 1089–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, M. and A. Rubinstein 1994, A Course in Game Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass
Pesendorfer, M. 2000, ‘A study of collusion in first price auctions’, Review of Economic Studies 67: 381–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, O., D. Menkhaus and K. Coatney 2001, ‘Collusive practices in repeated English auctions: experimental evidence on bidding rings’, Working Paper, University of Wyoming
Robinson, M. 1985, ‘Collusion and the choice of auction’, Rand Journal of Economics 16: 141–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherstyuk, K. 2000, ‘Some results on anti-competitive behavior in multi-unit ascending price auctions’, in C. Plott and V. Smith (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, Amsterdam
Vickrey, W. 1961, ‘Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders’, Journal of Finance 16: 8–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J. 2002, Strategy: An Introduction to Game Theory, W. W. Norton & Company, New York
Weber, R. 1997, ‘Making more from less: strategic demand reduction in the FCC spectrum auctions’, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 6: 529–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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
×