Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9k27k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-23T19:45:01.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demand reduction and preemptive bidding in multi-unit license auctions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Jacob K. Goeree ,
Theo Offerman  and
Randolph Sloof
Jacob K. Goeree
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Blümlisalpstrasse 10, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland
Theo Offerman
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Randolph Sloof*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Multi-unit ascending auctions allow for equilibria in which bidders strategically reduce their demand and split the market at low prices. At the same time, they allow for preemptive bidding by incumbent bidders in a coordinated attempt to exclude entrants from the market. We consider an environment where both demand reduction and preemptive bidding are supported as equilibrium phenomena of the ascending auction. In a series of experiments, we compare its performance to that of the discriminatory auction. Strategic demand reduction is quite prevalent in the ascending auction even when entry imposes a (large) negative externality on incumbents. As a result, the ascending auction performs worse than the discriminatory auction both in terms of revenue and efficiency, while entrants’ chances are similar across the two formats.

Keywords

Multi-license auctionsDemand reductionExternal effectsPreemption

JEL classification

D45: Rationing • Licensing D44: Auctions C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 1: Mechanisms and Methodology , March 2013 , pp. 52 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 Economic Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-012-9338-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A former editor of this journal, Timothy Cason, acted as a guest editor on this submission. His constructive remarks and those of two anonymous referees improved the presentation of the material. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Dutch Royal Academy of Sciences (KNAW) and the European Research Council (ERC Advanced Investigator Grant, ESEI-249433). We thank CREED programmer Jos Theelen for programming the experiment.

References

Abbink, K., & Brandts, J. (2005). Price competition under uncertainty: a laboratory analysis. Economic Inquiry, 43, 636–648. 10.1093/ei/cbi044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsemgeest, P., Noussair, C., & Olson, M. (1998). Experimental comparisons of auctions under single- and multi-unit demand. Economic Inquiry, 36, 87–97. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1998.tb01697.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausubel, L., & Cramton, P. (1998). Demand reduction and inefficiency in multi-unit auctions. Working paper 96–07.Google Scholar
Cramton, P. Cave, M., Majumdar, S., & Vogelsang, I. (2002). Spectrum auctions. Handbook of telecommunications economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. 605–639.Google Scholar
Cramton, P., & Schwartz, J. (2000). Collusive bidding: lessons from the fcc spectrum. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 17, 229–252. 10.1023/A:1008174031940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dana, J., & Spier, K. (1994). Designing a private industry. Government auctions with endogenous market structure. Journal of Public Economics, 53, 127–147. 10.1016/0047-2727(94)90017-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das Varma, G. (2002). Standard auctions with identity-dependent externalities. Rand Journal of Economics, 33(4), 689–708. 10.2307/3087481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das Varma, G. (2003). Asymmetric equilibria in the open ascending-price auction with shared allocative externalities. Working paper.Google Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., & Gneezy, U. (2000). Price competition and market concentration: an experimental study. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18, 7–22. 10.1016/S0167-7187(99)00031-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelbrecht-Wiggans, R., & Kahn, C. (1998). Multi-unit auctions with uniform prices. Economic Theory, 12, 227–258. 10.1007/s001990050220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, D., & Grimm, V. (2009). Bidding behavior in multi-unit auctions—an experimental investigation. Economic Journal, 119, 855–882. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02249.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewerhart, C., & Moldovanu, B. (2001). A stylized model of the German UMTS auction. Working paper, University of Mannheim.Google Scholar
Grimm, V., Riedel, F., & Wolfstetter, E. (2003). Implementing efficient market structure. Review of Economic Design, 7, 443–463. 10.1007/s100580300087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, V., Riedel, F., & Wolfstetter, E. (2003). Low price equilibrium in multi-unit auctions: the gsm spectrum auction in Germany. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1557–1569. 10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00058-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehiel, P., & Moldovanu, B. (2000). Auctions with downstream interaction among buyers. Rand journal of economics, 31, 768–791. 10.2307/2696358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehiel, P., Moldovanu, B., & Stacchetti, E. (1996). How (not) to sell nuclear weapons. American Economic Review, 86, 814–829.Google Scholar
Jehiel, P., Moldovanu, B., & Stacchetti, E. (1999). Multidimensional mechanism design for auctions with externalities. Journal of Economic Theory, 85, 258–294. 10.1006/jeth.1998.2501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J., & Levin, D. (2001). Behavior in multi-unit demand auctions: experiments with uniform price and dynamic auctions. Econometrica, 69(2), 413–454. 10.1111/1468-0262.00197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J., & Levin, D. (2005). Multi-unit demand auctions with synergies: behavior in sealed-bid versus ascending-bid uniform-price auctions. Games and Economic Behavior, 53, 170–207. 10.1016/j.geb.2004.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemperer, P. (2002). How (not) to run auctions: the European 3G Telecom auctions. European Economic Review, 46, 829–845. 10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00218-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemperer, P. (2003). Using and abusing economic theory—lessons from auction design. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 272–300. 10.1162/154247603322390937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemperer, P. (2004). Auctions: theory and practice, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebrun, B., & Tremblay, M.-C. (2003). Multi-unit pay-your-bid actions with onedimensional multi-unit demands. International Economic Review, 44, 1135–1172. 10.1111/1468-2354.t01-1-00104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2000). Demand reduction in multiunit auctions: evidence from a sportscard field experiment. American Economic Review, 90(4), 961–972. 10.1257/aer.90.4.961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, P. (2004). Putting auction theory to work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511813825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noussair, C. (1995). Equilibria in a multi-object uniform-price sealed bid auction with multi-unit demands. Economic Theory, 5, 337–351. 10.1007/BF01215207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spulber, D. (1995). Bertrand competition when rivals’ costs are unknown. Journal of Industrial Economics, 43, 1–11. 10.2307/2950422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R. (1997). Making more from less: strategic demand reduction in the fcc spectrum auctions. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 6, 529–548. 10.1162/105864097567183Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Goeree et al. supplementary material

Appendix A
Download Goeree et al. supplementary material(File)
File 430.2 KB