Which performs better under trader settings, double auction or uniform price auction?
- 2 Downloads
A marketable permit system (MPS) has been suggested as a solution to environmental problems. Although the properties of MPSs under non-trader settings, in which each player is exclusively either a seller or a buyer, are well documented, little research has explored how MPSs perform under trader settings, in which each player can be both a seller and a buyer. We institute two auctions of trader settings in MPS experiments: a double auction (DA) and a uniform price auction (UPA). We then evaluate and compare their performances both with each other and with those under non-trader settings. The main results are as follows: DAs under trader settings perform much worse than do DAs under non-trader settings, whereas UPAs perform well, regardless of the trader and non-trader settings. UPAs are more efficient and generate more stable prices than do DAs under trader settings, and a considerable proportion of trades in DAs under trader settings consist of “flips” that could be considered speculation or errors. Thus, UPAs are likely to work better than DAs under trader settings.
KeywordsMarketable permits Economic experiments Double auction Uniform price auction Non-trader settings Trader settings
JEL ClassificationD44 Q50 C91
The authors thank anonymous referees, Makoto Kakinaka and Hiroaki Miyamoto for their helpful comments, advice and supports. We are also grateful to the financial supports from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) as the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research B (16H03621), JSPS Specially Promoted Research and Ministry of Environment, Japan (S-16) and Kochi University of Technology.
- Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Davis, D. D., & Holt, C. A. (1992). Experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Easley, D., & Ledyard, J. (1993). Theories of price formation and exchange in double oral auction. In D. Friedman & J. Rust (Eds.), The double auction market: Institutions, theories and evidence, chapter 3 (pp. 253–283). Boulder: Westview press.Google Scholar
- Field, B. C., & Field, M. K. (2006). Environmental economics. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
- Kolstad, C. C. (2010). Environmental economics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lei, V., Noussair, C. N., & Plott, C. R. (2001). Nonspeculative bubbles in experimental asset markets: Lack of common knowledge of rationality vs. actual irrationality. Economica, 69, 831–859.Google Scholar
- Myagkov, M., & Plott, C. (1997). Exchange economies and loss exposure: Experiments exploring prospect theory and competitive equilibria in market environments. American Economic Review, 87, 801–828.Google Scholar
- Noussair, C. N., Plott, C., & Riezman, R. (1995). An experimental investigation of the patterns of international trade. American Economic Review, 85, 462–491.Google Scholar
- Plott, C. R., & Pogorelskiy, K. (2017). Call market experiments: Efficiency and price discovery through multiple calls and emergent Newton adjustments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 9, 1–41.Google Scholar
- Smith, V. L., Williams, A. W., Bratton, W., & Vannoni, M. G. (1982). Market institutions: Double auctions vs. sealed bid-offer auctions. American Economic Review, 72, 58–77.Google Scholar
- Tietenberg, T. H. (2006). Emissions trading: Principles and practice. Washington: RFF Press.Google Scholar
- Van Boening, M. V., & Wilcox, N. T. (1996). Avoidable cost: Ride a double auction roller coaster. American Economic Review, 86, 461–477.Google Scholar