Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T00:08:31.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Which performs better under trader settings, double auction or uniform price auction?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Koji Kotani Open the ORCID record for Koji Kotani [Opens in a new window] ,
Kenta Tanaka  and
Shunsuke Managi
Koji Kotani*
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi-shi, Japan School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi-shi, Japan Urban Institute, Kyusyu University, Fukuoka, Japan College of Business, Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan
Kenta Tanaka
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economics, Musashi University, Tokyo, Japan
Shunsuke Managi
Affiliation:
Departments of Urban and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Marketable permitsEconomic experimentsDouble auctionUniform price auctionNon-trader settingsTrader settings

JEL classification

D44: Auctions C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior Q50: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , 15 March 2019 , pp. 247 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, CM, & Sutinen, JG (2005). A laboratory assessment of tradable fishing allowances. Marince Resource Economics, 20, 1–20. 10.1086/mre.20.1.42629456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, CM, & Sutinen, JG (2006). The effect of initial lease periods on price discovery in laboratory tradable fishing allowance markets. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 164–180. 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, TN (2010). What can laboratory experiments teach us about emissions permit market design?. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 39, 151–161. 10.1017/S1068280500007218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, TN, & Friedman, D (1999). Learning in a laboratory market with random supply and demand. Experimental Economics, 2, 77–98. 10.1023/A:1009981800289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, TN, & Gangadharan, L (2005). A laboratory comparison of uniform and discriminative price auctions for reducing non-point source pollution. Land Economics, 81, 51–70. 10.3368/le.81.1.51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, TN, & Gangadharan, L (2006). Emissions variability in tradable permit markets with imperfect enforcement and banking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 199–216. 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, TN, Gangadharan, L, & Duke, C (2003). Market power in tradable emission markets: A laboatory testbed for emission trading in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46, 469–491. 10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00026-3Google Scholar
Cason, TN, & Plott, CR (1996). EPA’s new emission trading mechanism: A laboratory evaluation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 133–160. 10.1006/jeem.1996.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, WJ (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Davis, DD, & Holt, CA (1992). Experimental economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Easley, D, Ledyard, J Friedman, D, & Rust, J (1993). Theories of price formation and exchange in double oral auction. The double auction market: Institutions, theories and evidence, chapter 3, Boulder: Westview press 253–283.Google Scholar
Farrell, MJ (1966). Profitable speculation. Economica, 33, 183–193. 10.2307/2552611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, BC, & Field, MK (2006). Environmental economics, New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U (2007). Z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godby, R (2002). Market power in laboratory emission permit markets. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 279–318. 10.1023/A:1021263009621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godby, RW, Mestelman, S, Muller, RA, & Welland, JD (1997). Emissions trading with shares and coupons when control over discharges is uncertain. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 359–381. 10.1006/jeem.1997.0977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, JK, Holt, CA, Palmer, K, Shobe, W, & Burtraw, D (2010). An experimental study of auctions versus grandfathering to assign pollution permits. Journal of the European Economic Association, 8, 514–525. 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2010.tb00522.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, RW (1989). Economic prescriptions for environmental problems: How the patient followed the doctor’s orders. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3, 95–114. 10.1257/jep.3.2.95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, RW, & Stavins, RN (2011). The effect of allowance allocations on cap-and-trade system performance. Journal of Law and Economics, 54, 267–294. 10.1086/661942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamison, JC, & Plott, CR (1997). Costly offers and the equilibration properties of the multiple unit double auction under conditions of unpredictable shifts of demand and supply. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 32, 591–612. 10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00015-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilian, L, & Murphy, DP (2014). The role of inventories and speculative trading in the global market for crude oil. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29, 454–478. 10.1002/jae.2322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilkenny, M (2000). A classroom experiment about tradable permits. Review of Agricultural Economics, 22, 586–606. 10.1111/1058-7195.00040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolstad, CC (2010). Environmental economics, 2Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ledyard, JO, & Szakaly-Moore, K (1994). Designing organizations for trading pollution rights. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25, 167–196. 10.1016/0167-2681(94)90009-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, V, Noussair, CN, & Plott, CR (2001). Nonspeculative bubbles in experimental asset markets: Lack of common knowledge of rationality vs. actual irrationality. Economica, 69, 831–859.Google Scholar
Muller, R, & Mestelman, S (1998). What have we learned from emissions trading experiments?. Managerial and Decision Economics, 19, 225–238. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1468(199806/08)19:4/5<225::AID-MDE888>3.0.CO;2-V3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, R, Mestelman, S, Spraggon, J, & Godby, R (2002). Can double auctions control monopoly and monopsony power in emissions trading markets?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 70–92. 10.1006/jeem.2001.1195CrossRefGoogle 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, CN, Plott, C, & Riezman, R (1995). An experimental investigation of the patterns of international trade. American Economic Review, 85, 462–491.Google Scholar
Plott, CR (1983). Externalities and correctives policies in experimental markets. Economic Journal, 93, 106–127. 10.2307/2232168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, CR, & Gray, P (1990). The multiple unit double auction. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 13, 245–258. 10.1016/0167-2681(90)90089-VCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, CR, & 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, VL, Williams, AW, Bratton, W, & Vannoni, MG (1982). Market institutions: Double auctions vs. sealed bid-offer auctions. American Economic Review, 72, 58–77.Google Scholar
Tietenberg, TH (2006). Emissions trading: Principles and practice, Washington: RFF Press.Google Scholar
Van Boening, MV, & Wilcox, NT (1996). Avoidable cost: Ride a double auction roller coaster. American Economic Review, 86, 461–477.Google Scholar
Van Boening, MV, Williams, AW, & LaMaster, S (1993). Price bubbles and crashes in experimental call markets. Economics Letters, 41, 179–185. 10.1016/0165-1765(93)90194-HCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, AW (1980). Computerized double-auction markets: Some initial experimental results. Journal of Business, 53, 235–258. 10.1086/296084CrossRefGoogle Scholar