Theory and Decision

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 125–149

Endogenous entry in auctions with negative externalities

  • Isabelle Brocas
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we study the auction to allocate an indivisible good when each potential buyer has a private and independent valuation for the item and suffers a negative externality if a competitor acquires it. In that case, the outside option of each buyer is mechanism-dependent, which implies that participation is endogenous. As several works in the literature have shown, the optimal auction entails strong threats to induce full entry and maximal expected revenue. This results from the full commitment assumption, which ensures that threats are credible. We show that absent credible threats, the entry process does not lead to full participation: the equilibrium entails screening of agents in the entry stage and a trade-off between reserve prices and entry fees. Besides, we discuss the conditions under which the impossibility to use threats does not prevent the seller from ensuring a minimal screening and reaching a high expected revenue.

Auctions Commitment Coordination Externalities 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brocas, I. (1997), Information, Regulation and Research and Development, PhD Dissertation, GREMAQ, University of Toulouse.Google Scholar
  2. Brocas, I. (2002a), Designing Auctions in R&D: Optimal Licensing in R&D, mimeo, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  3. Brocas, I. (2002b), Auctions with type-dependent and negative externalities: the optimal mechanism, mimeo, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  4. Carrillo, J. (1998), Coordination and externalities, Journal of Economic Theory 78(1), 103–129.Google Scholar
  5. Engelbrecht-Wiggans, R. (1980), Auctions and bidding models: a survey, Management Science, 26(2), 119–142.Google Scholar
  6. Jehiel, P. and Moldovanu, B. (1996), Strategic nonparticipation, Rand Journal of Economics 27(1), 84–98.Google Scholar
  7. Jehiel, P. and Moldovanu, B. (2000), Auctions with downstream interaction among buyers, Rand Journal of Economics 31(4), 768–791.Google Scholar
  8. Jehiel P., Moldovanu, B. and Stacchetti, E. (1996), How (Not) to Sell Nuclear Weapons, American Economic Review 86(4), 814–829.Google Scholar
  9. Jehiel P., Moldovanu, B. and Stacchetti E. (1999), Multidimensional mechanism design for auctions with externalities, Journal of Economic Theory 85(2), 258–293.Google Scholar
  10. Kamien, M. and Tauman, Y. (1986), Fees versus royalties and the private value of a patent, Quarterly Journal of Economics 101(3), 471–493.Google Scholar
  11. Kamien, M., Oren, S. and Tauman, Y. (1992), Optimal licensing of cost-reducing innovations, Journal of Mathematical Economics 21(5), 483–509.Google Scholar
  12. Katz, M.L. and Shapiro, C. (1986), How to license intangible property, Quarterly Journal of Economics 101(3), 567–589.Google Scholar
  13. Klemperer P. (2000), Applying auction theory to economics, Invited Lecture to the 8th World Congress of the Econometric Society, Seattle, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. Klibanoff, P. and Morduch, J. (1995), Decentralization, externalities and effi-ciency, Review of Economic Studies 62(2), 223–247.Google Scholar
  15. Levin, D. and Smith, J.L. (1994), Equilibrium in auctions with entry, The American Economic Review 84(3), 585–599.Google Scholar
  16. McAfee, P. and McMillan, J. (1987a), Auctions and bidding, Journal of Economic Literature 25(2), 699–738.Google Scholar
  17. McAfee P. and McMillan J. (1987b), Auctions with entry, Economics Letters 23(4), 343–347.Google Scholar
  18. Myerson R.B. (1981), Optimal auction design, Mathematics of Operation Research 6(1), 58–73.Google Scholar
  19. Samuelson W. (1985), Competitive bidding with entry costs, Economics Letters, 53–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Brocas
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of EconomicsThe University of NamurNamurBelgique

Personalised recommendations