Journal of Regulatory Economics

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 39–58 | Cite as

Taking the Lab to the Field: Experimental Tests of Alternative Mechanisms to Procure Multiple Contracts

  • Anders Lunander
  • Jan-Eric Nilsson

Abstract

The first part of the paper reports the results from a sequence of laboratory experiments comparing the bidding behavior for multiple contracts in three different sealed bid auction mechanisms; first-price simultaneous, first-price sequential and first-price combinatorial bidding. The design of the experiment is based on experiences from a public procurement auction of road markings in Sweden. Bidders are asymmetric in their cost functions; some exhibit decreasing average costs of winning more than one contract, whereas other bidders have increasing average cost functions. The combinatorial bidding mechanism is demonstrated to be most efficient. The second part of the paper describes how the lab experiment was followed up by a field test of a combinatorial procurement auction of road markings.

multiple units non-constant costs asymmetric redemption values alternative procurement mechanisms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armstrong, M. 2000. “Optimal Multi-Object Auctions.” Review of Economic Studies 67: 455-481.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, L. M., and P. Milgrom. 2001. Ascending Auctions with Package Bidding Conference paper presented the Conference on Combinatorial Bidding on October 26–28, 2001, Aspen Institute's Wye Woods Conference Centers, Queenstown, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Avery, C., and T. Hendershott. 2000. “Bundling and Optimal Auctions of Multiple Products.” Review of Economic Studies 67: 483-497.Google Scholar
  4. Bikhehandani, S. 1996. “Auctions of Heterogeneous Objects.” Games and Economic Behavior 26(2): 193-220.Google Scholar
  5. Binmore, K., and J. Swierzbinski. 2000. “Treasury Auctions: Uniform or Discriminatory.” Review of Economic Design 5: 387-410.Google Scholar
  6. Branco, F. 1997. “Sequential Auctions with Synergies: An Example.” Economics Letters 54: 159-163.Google Scholar
  7. Branco, F. 2001. “On The Superiority of The Multiple Round Ascending Bid Auction.” Economics Letters 70: 187-194.Google Scholar
  8. Bykowsky, M. M., R. J. Cull, and J. O. Ledyard. 2000. “Mutually Destructive Bidding: The FCC Auction Design Problem.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 17(3): 205-228.Google Scholar
  9. Cramton, P. 1997. “The FCC Spectrum Auctions: An Early Assessment.” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 6(3): 431-495.Google Scholar
  10. Cramton, P., and J. A. Schwartz. 2000. “Collusive Bidding: Lessons from the FCC Spectrum Auctions.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 17(3): 229-252.Google Scholar
  11. Cybernomics, Inc. 2000. “An Experimental Comparison of the Simultaneous Multi-Round Auction and the CRA Combinatorial Auction.” Mimeo submitted to the Federal Communications Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Engelbrecht-Wiggans, R., and R. J. Weber. 1979. “An Example of Multi-Object Auction Game.” Management Science 25(12): 1272-1277.Google Scholar
  13. Gale, I. 1990. “A Multiple-Object Auction with Superadditive Values.” Economics Letters 34: 323-328.Google Scholar
  14. Harrison, G. W., R. M. Harstad, and E. E. Rutström. 2000. Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values, Mimeo, Department of Economics, The Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
  15. Katzman, B. 1999. “A Two Stage Sequential Auction with Multi-Unit Demands.” Journal of Economic Theory 86: 77-99.Google Scholar
  16. Klemperer, P. 1998. “Auctions with almost Common Values: The ‘Wallet Game’ and its Applications.” European Economic Review 42: 757-769.Google Scholar
  17. Krishna, V., and R. W. Rosenthal. 1996a. “Simultaneous Auctions with Synergies.” Games and Economic Behavior 17: 1-31.Google Scholar
  18. Krishna, V. 2002. Auction Theory. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lang, K., and R. W. Rosenthal. 1991. “The Contractor's Game.” Rand Journal of Economics 22(3): 329-338.Google Scholar
  20. Ledyard, J., D. Porter, and A. Rangel. 1997. “Experiments Testing Multiobject Allocation Mechanisms.” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 6(3): 639-675.Google Scholar
  21. Ledyard, J., M. Olson, D. Porter, J. Swanson, and T. Torma. 2000. First Use of Combined Value Auctions for Transportation Services Net Exchange, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Marshall, R. C., M. J. Meurer, J. F. Richard, and W. Stromquist. 1994. “Numerical Analysis of Asymmetric First Price Auctions.” Games and Economic Behavior 7: 193-220.Google Scholar
  23. McAfee, P. R., and J. McMillan. 1992 “Bidding Rings.” American Economic Review 82(3): 579-599.Google Scholar
  24. Milgrom, P. 1998. “Game Theory and the Spectrum Auctions.” European Economic Review 42: 771-778.Google Scholar
  25. Porter, D. P. 1999. “The Effect of Bid Withdrawal in a Multi-Object Auction.” Review of Economic Design 4: 73-97.Google Scholar
  26. Robinson, M. S. 1985. “Collusion and the Choice of Auction.” Rand Journal of Economics 16(1): 141-145.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenthal, R. W., and R. Wang. 1996. “Simultaneous Auctions with Synergies and Common Values.” Games and Economic Behavior 17: 32-55.Google Scholar
  28. Trade Extensions. 2001. Business Case: Saving money for Volvo with a Combinatorial Auction. www.tradeextensions.com.Google Scholar
  29. Von Ungern-Sternberg, T. 1991. “Swiss Auction.” Economica 58: 341-357.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anders Lunander
    • 1
  • Jan-Eric Nilsson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Economics, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute andÖrebro UniversityÖrebroSweden
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Swedish National Road and Transport Research InstituteDalarna UniversityBorlängeSweden

Personalised recommendations