iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40844-016-0046-1?fromPaywallRec=true
Comparing the effectiveness of collusion devices in first-price procurement: an auction experiment | Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing the effectiveness of collusion devices in first-price procurement: an auction experiment

  • Article
  • Published:
Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collusion in procurement auctions is illegal, but often observed. We compare experimentally three coordination mechanisms in how effectively they promote collusion in first-price procurement auctions. One mechanism aims at excluding competitive bids via bidding restrictions. The second one allows for promises on sharing the gains from collusion as in mutual shareholding. The third mechanism relies on unrestricted pre-play communication. Agreements made under the three mechanisms are non-binding. In the experiment, bidders interact with the same group of competitors only once as it is quite common in globalized (online) markets. We find that first-price procurement is quite collusion-proof regarding the first two mechanisms whereas pre-play communication, on average, increases profits. The communication protocols provide valuable insights about how to coordinate and implement non-binding collusion agreements in competitive one-shot interactions with private information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As such, our set-up is in line with the more general view in the economics of crime literature (e.g., Eide et al. 2006) that prevention, detection, and sanctioning should be based on understanding the motives, practices, and the success chances of those who possibly consider and attempt to gain from illegal behavior.

  2. For laboratory research on first-price procurement auctions see, e.g., Brosig and Reiß (2007), Büchner et al. (2008), Brosig-Koch and Heinrich (2014), Hoppe et al. (2013), and Aycinena et al. (2014).

  3. Unregistered and therefore illegal employment of labor is one such example where one tries to estimate the size of an iceberg when only observing its top (see, e.g., Schneider and Enste 2013).

  4. See also the survey provided by Kwasnica and Sherstyuk (2013).

  5. To our knowledge, only Hu et al. (2011) test the effectiveness of collusion in a single-unit design with repeated one-shot interactions. In their study, communication is restricted to voting on cooperation, however. If all six bidders voted to cooperate, cooperation was binding for all six bidders.

  6. That future contact allows stabilizing cooperation without commitment power has been theoretically established by Folk Theorems (see, e.g., Aumann and Shapley 1994) and confirmed experimentally even when the requirements of Folk Theorems (infinitely many interaction periods or multiplicity of equilibria in the base game) are not met (see, e.g., Selten and Stoecker 1986; Axelrod 1984).

  7. In view of Olson (1971) the case of only two bidders seems to provide the best case scenario to observe ring formation where, however, Olson has disregarded private information, which renders ring formation far more difficult. Our findings reveal that with private information even the smallest groups (of two competitors) often fail to collude.

  8. The property ruling out any arbitrary (dis)favoring of bidders is envy freeness according to bids in the sense of p(b)-b ω  ≥ 0 ≥ p(b) − b i for i ≠ ω, where p(b) denotes the price paid to the winner ω as determined by the bid vector b = (b 1, b 2). This implies b ω  ≤ p(b) ≤ b i for i ≠ ω. Asking additionally for equal payoffs according to bids, i.e. p(b) − b ω  = 0, further implies p(b) = b ω . Thus, envy freeness and equal payoffs according to bids together characterize the rules of lowest bid = price procurement auctions as analyzed here. To characterize axiomatically the second (-lowest bid) price rule one only has to substitute “equal payoffs according to bids” by “incentive compatibility” (Vickrey 1961).

  9. The equality axiom used in the previous footnote only guarantees equal payoffs according to bids, but not according to true costs which are idiosyncratic and privately known and, thus, mostly not objectively, i.e., interpersonally, verifiable.

  10. To equilibrate such collusive bidding, mutual trustworthiness must be sufficiently strong, e.g., in the sense of regret exceeding the gain of winning the auction at the highest possible price of 150.

  11. Again, this requires sufficiently strong trustworthiness to be an equilibrium, specifically of keeping one's promise to share one's profit in case of winning.

  12. Revealing individual cost values before bid submission is quite common in experimental research (see Kagel and Levin 2011, for a review of auction experiments). The idea is to learn more about bidding behavior by letting subjects repeatedly respond to realized cost values instead of by eliciting bid functions which assign a specific bid for any cost value that could be possibly realized (which is an alternative method to study bidding behavior).

  13. Some additional sessions with varying time series of cost values were conducted in order to test the robustness of results against the specific cost series chosen. We observed no obvious bias.

  14. This is why we refrained from the usual practice of trial rounds and/or control questionnaire before the experiment.

  15. For further details, please contact the authors.

  16. Note that, in contrast to the restricted bidding range treatment and the mutual shareholding treatment, no hint was given on how to collude when not being informed about the other bidder's cost value.

  17. Actually, such variability seems attractive when being monitored by antitrust authorities. In case of complete information such variability would require coordinating on alternating in winnings.

  18. Undergraduate students who registered in ORSEE to participate in laboratory experiments at the University of Jena were invited via automatically generated e‐mails and registered for a specific session. We can thus say that subjects were randomly allocated to the experimental treatments. Moreover, subjects were not informed about the content of the experimental conditions unless they participated in a session.

  19. In none of the treatments subjects were informed about the size of the matching group to discourage even further their anyhow unlikely reputation concerns (in very stochastic environments like our setup, where cost levels change a lot, small matching groups usually suffice to discourage repeated interaction effects). Since in the treatment with communication it could have been less difficult for subjects to identify the matching protocol from the content of email messages, we have used matching groups consisting of eight subjects in this treatment and assured a perfect stranger re-matching.

  20. Appendix 3, Table 6 provides more detailed bidding data.

  21. This behaviour was also observed in the procurement auction experiment run by Brosig and Reiß (2007).

  22. Unless indicated otherwise, the analyses are based on data obtained in the sessions with the same series of cost values. Regressions including sessions with other series of cost values (variable) yield similar results which is also reported in the paper.

  23. Table 7 in Appendix 3 provides more detailed profit data.

  24. Similar results apply when analyzing the efficiency loss (measured as the difference between the winner’s and the lowest cost bidder’s cost values). In none of the 22 auctions of the control treatment the efficiency loss is significantly higher than predicted (i.e., is significantly positive) and in only one auction of MS and CO, respectively, we observe a slightly higher efficiency loss than in CT (p < 0.050, exact one-tailed MWU test).

  25. Calculating this percentage, we count the number of all winners whose realized profits deviate by no more than 1 from the proposed profit. The average percentage of winners choosing exactly the proposed profit is 4.7 and the average percentage of winners whose realized profit deviates by 5 or less is 62.1. Note that we excluded two subjects who received a negative profit and therefore could not share this profit.

  26. Only 7 of the 142 deviators keep less than the amount suggested by the selected proposal. Four of them already proposed to keep a lower amount.

  27. Calculating this percentage, we consider all bids deviating by no more than 1 from the selected proposed bids. The average percentage of subjects choosing exactly the bid suggested by ε is 2.0 and the average percentage of subjects whose submitted bid deviate by no more than 5 is 28.1.

  28. About 52.6 % of “overbidders” chose a bid which was higher than the one suggested by the own ε i .

  29. Another idea would have been to investigate mechanisms that combine restricted bidding or mutual shareholding with free-form pre-play communication like “restricted bidding range negotiation after communication” or “mutual shareholding negotiation after communication”. This combination might help to establish anticompetitive behavior since it provides a clear hint on what to communicate about when trying to restrict bidding competition. It, thus, focuses the cheap talk exchange on how far one wants to restrict competition. Furthermore, it seems natural that one can freely communicate when being able to “restrict bidding” or to arrange “mutual shareholding”. Since our focus is on isolating the effects of the three mechanisms, we implemented them in separate treatments, however.

References

  • Abbink K, Sadrieh A (2009) The pleasure of being nasty. Economics Letters 105(3):306–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J, Che YK, Kim J (2007) Asymmetric information about rivals’ types in standard auctions: an experiment. Games Econ Behav 59(2):240–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aumann R, Shapley L (1994) Long-term competition: a game-theoretic analysis. In: Megiddo N (ed) Essays in game theory in honor of Michael Maschler. Springer, New York, pp 1–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Aycinena D, Baltaduonis R, Rentschler L (2014) Valuation structure in first-price and least-revenue auctions: an experimental investigation. Exp Econ 7(1):100–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajari P, Hortacsu A (2004) Economic insights from internet auctions. J Econ Lit 42(2):457–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan P (1997) Corruption and development: a review of issues. J Econ Lit 35(3):1320–1346

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76(2):169–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton G, Greiner B, Ockenfels A (2013) Engineering trust: reciprocity in the production of reputation information. Manag Sci 59(2):265–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosig J, Reiß JP (2007) Entry decisions and bidding behavior in sequential first-price procurement auctions: an experimental study. Games Econ Behav 58:50–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosig-Koch J, Heinrich T (2014) Reputation and mechanism choice in procurement auctions: an experiment. Prod Oper Manag 23(2):210–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büchner S, Freytag A, Gonzalez L, Güth W (2008) Bribery and public procurement: an experimental study. Public Choice 137:103–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cason TN, Saijo T, Yamato T (2002) Voluntary participation and spite in public good provision experiments: an international comparison. Exp Econ 5(2):133–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2006) Promises and partnership. Econometrica 74:1579–1601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri A (2011) Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature. Exp Econ 14:47–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Kartik N, Sobel J (2008) Selecting cheap-talk equilibria. Econometrica 76:117–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury SM, Gürtler O (2015) Sabotage in contests: a survey. Public Choice 164(1–2):135–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen SE, Loeb M (1990) Implicit cost allocation and bidding for contracts. Manag Sci 36:1133–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper DJ, Kagel J (2013) Other regarding preferences: a selective survey of experimental results. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (eds) The handbook of experimental economics, vol 2, Princeton University Press, Princeton (forthcoming)

  • Cutcheon D, Stuart FI (2000) Issues in the choice of supplier alliance partners. J Oper Manag 18(3):279–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Silva DG, Dunne T, Kosmopoulou G (2002) Sequential bidding in auctions of construction contracts. Econ Lett 76:239–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eide E, Rubin PH, Shepherd JM (2006) Economics of crime. Now Publishers Inc, Boston, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellingsen T, Johannesson M (2004) Promises, threats, and fairness. Econ J 114:397–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehl U, Güth W (1987) Internal and external stability of bidder cartels in auctions and public tenders. Int J Ind Organ 5:303–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr E, Glätzle-Rützler D, Sutter M (2013) The development of egalitarianism, altruism, spite and parochialism in childhood and adolescence. Eur Econ Rev 64:369–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher U, Föllmi-Heusi F (2013) Lies in disguise—an experimental study on cheating. J Eur Econ Assoc 11(3):525–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandenberger O (1961) Die Ausschreibung. Quelle und Meyer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Genesove D, Mullin WP (2001) Rules, communication and collusion: narrative evidence from the sugar institute case. Am Econ Rev 91:379–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy U (2005) Deception: the role of consequences. Am Econ Rev 95(1):384–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goswami G, Noe TH, Rebello MJ (1996) Collusion in uniform-price auctions: experimental evidence and implication for treasury auctions. Rev Financ Stud 9:757–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner B (2004) An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In: Kremer K, Macho V (eds) Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63, pp 79–93

  • Güth W, Peleg B (1996) On ring formation in auctions. Math Soc Sci 32:1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth W, Pezanis-Christou P (2015) Believing in correlated types in spite of independence: an indirect evolutionary analysis. Econ Lett 134:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harbring C, Irlenbusch B (2008) How many winners are good to have? On tournaments with sabotage. J Econ Behav Organ 65(3):682–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich T (2011) Communication and reputation in procurement auctions—some empirical evidence. Econ Lett 114:164–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt CA (1980) Competitive bidding for contracts under alternative auction procedures. J Polit Econ 88:433–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe EI, Kusterer DJ, Schmitz PW (2013) Public–private partnerships versus traditional procurement: an experimental investigation. J Econ Behav Organ 89:145–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu A, Offerman T, Onderstal S (2011) Fighting collusion in auctions: an experimental investigation. Int J Ind Organ 29:84–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac MR, Walker J (1985) Information and conspiracy in sealed bid auctions. J Econ Behav Organ 6:139–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jofre-Bonet M, Pesendorfer M (2000) Bidding behavior in a repeated procurement auction. Eur Econ Rev 44:1006–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jofre-Bonet M, Pesendorfer M (2003) Estimation of a dynamic auction game. Econometrica 71:1443–1489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagel JH, Levin D (2011) Auctions: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE (eds) The handbook of experimental economics, vol 2, Princeton University Press, Princeton (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kartik N (2009) Strategic communication with lying costs. Rev Econ Stud 76:1359–1395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keynes JM (1936) The general theory of employment, interest, and money. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovacic WE, Marshall RC, Marx LM, Raiff ME (2006) Anti-collusive measures for auctions and procurement. In: Dimitri N, Piga G, Spagnolo G (eds) Handbook of procurement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 381–411

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kwasnica A (2000) The choice of cooperative strategies in sealed bid auctions. J Econ Behav Organ 42:323–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwasnica A, Sherstyuk K (2013) Multiunit auctions. J Econ Surv 27:461–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Plott CR (2009) Tacit collusion in auctions and conditions for its facilitation and prevention: equilibrium selection in laboratory experimental markets. Econ Inq 47:425–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopomo G, Marx LM, Sun P (2011) Linear programming for mechanism design: an application to bidder collusion in first price auctions. Rev Econ Des 15:177–211

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod WB (2007) Reputations, relationships, and contract enforcement. J Econ Lit 45(3):595–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall RC, Marx LM (2007) Bidder collusion. J Econ Theory 133:374–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin S (1988) Industrial economics: economic analysis and public policy. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin S, Hartley K, Cox A (1999) Public procurement directives in the European Union: a study of local authority purchasing. Public Adm 77:387–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee RP, McMillan J (1992) Bidding rings. Am Econ Rev 82:579–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom PR (1987) Auction theory. In: Bewley TF (ed) Advances in economic theory: fifth world congress. Econometric society monographs series, vol 12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–32

  • Olson M (1971) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesendorfer M (2002) A study of collusion in first-price auctions. Rev Econ Stud 67:381–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips OR, Menkhaus DJ, Coatney KT (2003) Collusive practices in repeated English auctions: experimental evidence on bidding rings. Am Econ Rev 93:965–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson M (1985) Collusion and the choice of auction. RAND J Econ 16:141–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothkopf MH, Teisberg TJ, Kahn EP (1990) Why are Vickrey auctions rare? J Polit Econ 98:94–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rustichini A, Villeval MC (2014) Moral hypocrisy, power and social preferences. J Econ Behav Organ 107:10–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sally D (1995) Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas a meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Ration Soc 7:58–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider F, Enste DH (2013) The shadow economy: an international survey. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sefton M, Zhang P (2013) Divisible-good uniform price auctions: the role of allocation rules and communication among bidders. In: Collins SM, Isaac RM, Norton DA (eds) Experiments in financial economics (research in experimental economics), vol 16. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 53–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Selten R, Stoecker R (1986) End behavior in finite prisoner’s dilemma supergames. J Econ Behav Organ 7:47–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherstyuk K, Dulatre J (2008) Market performance and collusion in sequential and simultaneous multi-object auctions: evidence from an ascending auctions experiment. Int J Ind Organ 26:557–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London 

  • Thöni C (2014) Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment. Theor Decis 76(4):529–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanberg C (2008) Why do people keep their promises? An experimental test of two explanations. Econometrica 76:1467–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickrey W (1961) Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J Finance 16:8–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeannette Brosig-Koch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Linear benchmark solution in case of mutual and symmetric shareholding

For i, j = 1, 2 with i ≠ j the payoff expectation for the risk neutral bidder i with cost value c i  ∈ [0, 1] is

$$E_{i} \left( {b_{i} \left| {c_{i} } \right.} \right) = \left( {1 - s} \right)\int\limits_{{b_{i} < f\left( {c_{j} } \right)}} {\left[ {b_{i} - c_{i} } \right]{\text{d}}c_{j} + s} \int\limits_{{b_{i} \ge f\left( {c_{j} } \right)}} {\left[ {f\left( {c_{j} } \right) - c_{j} } \right]} {\text{d}}c_{j} ,$$

where f(.) is the linear symmetric and monotonic equilibrium bid function.

Let us rewrite E i (b i |c i ) as

$$\begin{gathered} E_{i} \left( {b_{i} \left| {c_{i} } \right.} \right) = \left( {1 - s} \right)\left( {b_{i} - c_{i} } \right)\int\limits_{{f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right) < c_{j} \le 1}} {{\text{d}}c_{j} + s} \int\limits_{{f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right) \ge c_{j} \ge 0}} {\left[ {f\left( {c_{j} } \right) - c_{j} } \right]} {\text{d}}c_{j} \hfill \\ \quad = \left( {1 - s} \right)\left( {b_{i} - c_{i} } \right)\left[ {1 - f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right)} \right] + s\left[ {F\left( {f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right)} \right)} \right]\int\limits_{{f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right) < c_{j} \le 1}} {{\text{d}}c_{j} } \hfill \\ \quad \quad + s\int\limits_{{f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right) \ge c_{j} \ge 0}} {\left[ {f\left( {c_{j} } \right) - c_{j} } \right]} {\text{d}}c_{j} , \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

where F’(.) = f(.). For an interior best reply b i to f(.) the first order condition is

$$\begin{aligned} s\left[ {b_{i} \frac{d}{{{\text{d}}b_{i} }}f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right) - f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right)\frac{d}{{{\text{d}}b_{i} }}f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right)} \right] & = \left( {1 - s} \right)\left( {b_{i} - c_{i} } \right)\frac{d}{{{\text{d}}b_{i} }}f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right) \\ & \quad - (1 - s)\left[ {1 - f^{{ - 1}} \left( {b_{i} } \right)} \right] \\ \end{aligned}$$

which can be simplified as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} &\frac{d}{{{\text{d}}b_{i} }}f^{ - 1} \left( {b_{i} } \right)\left[ {b_{i} - f^{ - 1} \left( {b_{i} } \right) - \frac{1 - s}{s}\left( {b_{i} - c_{i} } \right)} \right] = - \frac{1 - s}{s}\left[ {1 - f^{ - 1} \left( {b_{i} } \right)} \right] \hfill \\ &\quad \Leftrightarrow \frac{d}{{{\text{d}}b_{i} }}f^{ - 1} \left( {b_{i} } \right) = - \frac{1 - s}{s}\frac{{1 - f^{ - 1} \left( {b_{i} } \right)}}{{b_{i} - f^{ - 1} \left( {b_{i} } \right) - \frac{1 - s}{s}\left( {b_{i} - c_{i} } \right)}} \hfill \\ &\quad \Leftrightarrow \frac{{{\text{d}}b_{i} }}{{{\text{d}}f^{ - 1} \left( {b_{i} } \right)}} = - \frac{s}{1 - s}\frac{{b_{i} - f^{ - 1} \left( {b_{i} } \right) - \frac{1 - s}{s}\left( {b_{i} - c_{i} } \right)}}{{1 - f^{ - 1} \left( {b_{i} } \right)}}. \hfill \\ \end{aligned}$$

Now substituting b i  = f(c i ) and c i  = f −1(b i ) into the latter equation yields the ordinary differential equation

$$f'\left( {c_{i} } \right) = \frac{1 - 2s}{1 - s}\frac{{f\left( {c_{i} } \right) - c_{i} }}{{1 - c_{i} }}.$$

For the linear and monotonic solution f(c i ) = α + βc i with β > 0 we thus obtain

$$\left( {1 - s} \right)\beta - \left( {1 - s} \right)\beta c_{i} = \left( {1 - 2 s} \right)\alpha + \left( {1 - 2 s} \right)\left( {\beta - 1} \right)c_{i} .$$

Since the left and the right hand-side above have to coincide for all c i  ∈ [0,1] this requires

$$\left( { 1 - s} \right)\beta = \left( { 1 - 2 s} \right)\alpha \quad {\text{or}}\quad \beta = \frac{1 - 2s}{1 - s}\alpha$$

and

$$- \left( {1 - s} \right)\beta = \left( {1 - 2s} \right)\left( {\beta - 1} \right)$$

or, after substituting for β,

$$- \left( {1 - 2s} \right)\alpha = \left( {1 - 2s} \right)\left[ {\frac{{\left( {1 - 2s} \right)\alpha }}{1 - s} - 1} \right]$$

and, thus,

$$\alpha = \frac{1 - s}{2 - 3s}\quad {\text{and}}\quad \beta = \frac{1 - 2s}{2 - 3s}.$$

Appendix 2: Instructions (translated from German)

2.1 Welcome to this experiment!

2.1.1 Preliminary remarks

In the following, you will take part in an experimental study in the field of economics in which the decision behavior of individuals is investigated. During the experiment, you will participate in a series of auction games in which you can earn money. How much you eventually earn depends on your own and others’ decisions (possible losses will be deducted from the show-up bonus of 2.50 Euro which you receive for participating in this experiment). At the end of the experiment, your accrued earnings will be converted into Euro at the rate of 1 ECU: 0.07 EURO and disbursed to you in cash.

Please read the subsequent instructions carefully. About 5 min after you have received these instructions, we will come to your place to answer any remaining questions. Afterwards, you will receive a questionnaire which is used to ensure that you have fully understood the rules of this experiment. We will not start with the experiment until all participants have correctly answered all the listed questions.

In case that you have further questions in the course of the experiment, please indicate this by raising your hand. We will then come to your place and answer your questions.

2.1.2 Description of the auction

In every period of the experiment, a generic “project” is auctioned off. The project is awarded to the bidder who states the lowest bid.

Bidders In each auction there are exactly two bidders, i.e., you and another bidder. In each period, the other bidder with whom you will interact is randomly assigned to you from a group of participants. It is ensured that you will not interact with the same participant in two consecutive periods.

Costs For every auction period and for every bidder, a cost value is independently and randomly assigned from the interval from 50 LD to 150 LD whereby each value in this range is equally likely. Before the start of an auction, you will be informed about your own cost value. Apart from this, you will not receive any further information.

Decision In each auction period you have to decide on the bid that you want to submit for the project.

If your bid for the project is less than the bid of the other bidder, you are awarded the project and your auction profit is the difference between your bid and your cost. It is possible to realize a loss if your bid is less than your cost.

If your bid for the project is greater than the bid of the other bidder, you do not win the auction. In this case your profit equals zero, since you were not awarded the project and therefore did not incur any cost.

If your bid is equal to the bid of the other bidder, you are awarded the project with a probability of 50 %.

2.1.3 Proposal stage

In every auction and before determining his/her bid, each of the two bidders has the possibility to make the other bidder a suggestion concerning the distribution of the bids that are to be submitted. For this purpose, both bidders independently select an integer value from the range of 0 to 100. After each bidder has decided on a particular value, both bidders are informed about the larger of the two stated values. In the following, this value shall be denoted as N.

Given N, each bidder is free to set his/her own bid according to the following rule:

$${\text{Own bid}} = 1 50{-}N + \left( {N/ 100} \right) \, * \, \left( {{\text{own cost}}{-} 50} \right)$$

This means that if your cost amounts to 50, your bid would be 150 − N. If you were assigned the maximal cost of 150, you would always bid 150, irrespective of the value of N. This shows that it is possible to constrict the bidding interval by agreeing on a small value of N. The smaller is N, the larger is the least “accepted” bid and the larger is the potential profit of the bidders.

Please notice that every bidder is free to decide whether (s)he sets his/her bid according to the above-mentioned formula or not.

2.1.4 Proposal stage

In every auction and before determining his/her bid, each of the two bidders has the possibility to make the other bidder a suggestion concerning the distribution of the yet unrealized auction profit between the two. For this purpose, both bidders independently select an integer value from the range of 0 to 100. After each bidder has decided on a particular value, both bidders are informed about the smaller of the two stated values. In the following, this value shall be denoted as N.

Given N, the winning bidder is free to divide the realized auction profit according to the following rule:

$${\text{The\, winner\, of\, the\, auction\, obtains}}:\;(200 - N/200{\text{ }}*{\text{ }}({\text{winner's\, bid}} - {\text{winner's\, cost}}).$$
$${\text{The losing bidder obtains:}}\;N/200{\text{ }}*{\text{ }}({\text{winner's bid}} - {\text{winner's cost}})$$

This means that the larger is N, the smaller is the difference between the payoff of the winning and the losing bidder.

Please bear in mind that every bidder is free to decide whether to split the realized auction profit according to the above-mentioned rule or not, after (s)he is informed that (s)he has won the auction.

2.1.5 Communication stage

Before an auction is conducted the two bidders have the possibility to communicate with each other via electronic (chat) messages before they then independently decide on their bid.

Generally, the content of your communication is totally up to you. You are, however, not allowed to:

  • provide personal information about yourself such as your age, address, gender [please always use gender-neutral terms, e.g., “bidder A”, “bidder B”], field of studies [this also includes mentioning the names of professors, lectures or similar contents which allow to identify the other’s field of studies] and the like, or to

  • negotiate any form of side payments.

In case that you do not respect these rules we will unfortunately have to exclude you from the experiment which means that you will not receive any payment at all in this experiment. The duration of the communication stage is limited to 5 min. You may, however, finish your conversation earlier as well.

2.1.6 Practice periods

Before the actual experiment starts you will have the possibility to familiarize yourself with the decision problem and the use of the software in the course of two practice periods. Note that in both periods, the other bidders’ decisions are simulated by the computer and are identical for all participants. All decisions that are made during the two practice periods are for training purposes only and will not affect your eventual payoff in the experiment.

2.1.7 Payment

After you have finished the two practice periods, you will participate in a series of auctions of which five auctions will be randomly selected to determine your payoff in this experiment. Once all auctions have been finished, your earnings in the respective five periods will be summed up, converted according to the exchange rate of 1 ECU: 0.07 EURO, and disbursed to you in cash.

2.1.8 Please note

All participants in this experiment have received the identical set of instructions. None of the participants will receive any information concerning the identity of any other participant.

Appendix 3

See Tables 6, 7, and 8.

Table 6 Submitted bids—summary statistics
Table 7 Period profits—summary statistics
Table 8 Linear mixed-effects model of period profits

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brosig-Koch, J., Güth, W. & Weiland, T. Comparing the effectiveness of collusion devices in first-price procurement: an auction experiment. Evolut Inst Econ Rev 13, 269–295 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-016-0046-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-016-0046-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation