2004Cambridge University Press eBooksRequires access

Preventing collusion among firms in auctions

Timothy C. Salmon

Open publisher page 7 citations

Abstract

Introduction Collusion among bidders in auctions is a serious concern for those interested in designing procedures to allocate public assets whether the goal of the process is efficiency or revenue maximisation. In either case, bidders acting collusively can seriously impair an auctioneer's ability to accomplish their goal. There has been a wide variety of examples of collusion discussed in the economic literature, including collusive bidding for school milk contracts (Pesendorfer, 2000), in cattle auctions (Phillips, Menkhaus and Coatney, 2001), in timber auctions (Baldwin, Marshall and Richard, 1997) and, of course, in spectrum auctions, which will be the focus of this study. We will present a brief survey of recent literature on collusion problems mostly in ascending auctions and then go on to discuss the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) experience in dealing with collusion in their auctions as a case study in how the lessons from this literature can be applied. We will be discussing both ascending and sealed-bid auction formats and the incentives for collusion embedded in each, but the focus will be on ascending auctions. Ascending auctions are the primary focus of the literature on collusion in auctions owing to the fact that ascending auctions are more susceptible to ‘in-auction’ collusion than sealed-bid auctions. The term in-auction collusion is used to refer to collusion that can emerge and be enforced inside a single auction.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Introduction Collusion among bidders in auctions is a serious concern for those interested in designing procedures to allocate public assets whether the goal of the process is efficiency or revenue maximisation. In either case, bidders acting collusively can seriously impair an auctioneer's ability to accomplish their goal. There has been a wide variety of examples of collusion discussed in the economic literature, including collusive bidding for school milk contracts (Pesendorfer, 2000), in cattle auctions (Phillips, Menkhaus and Coatney, 2001), in timber auctions (Baldwin, Marshall and Richard, 1997) and, of course, in spectrum auctions, which will be the focus of this study. We will present a brief survey of recent literature on collusion problems mostly in ascending auctions and then go on to discuss the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) experience in dealing with collusion in their auctions as a case study in how the lessons from this literature can be applied. We will be discussing both ascending and sealed-bid auction formats and the incentives for collusion embedded in each, but the focus will be on ascending auctions. Ascending auctions are the primary focus of the literature on collusion in auctions owing to the fact that ascending auctions are more susceptible to ‘in-auction’ collusion than sealed-bid auctions. The term in-auction collusion is used to refer to collusion that can emerge and be enforced inside a single auction.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Introduction Collusion among bidders in auctions is a serious concern for those interested in designing procedures to allocate public assets whether the goal of the process is efficiency or revenue maximisation. In either case, bidders acting collusively can seriously impair an auctioneer's ability to accomplish their goal. There has been a wide variety of examples of collusion discussed in the economic literature, including collusive bidding for school milk contracts (Pesendorfer, 2000), in cattle auctions (Phillips, Menkhaus and Coatney, 2001), in timber auctions (Baldwin, Marshall and Richard, 1997) and, of course, in spectrum auctions, which will be the focus of this study. We will present a brief survey of recent literature on collusion problems mostly in ascending auctions and then go on to discuss the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) experience in dealing with collusion in their auctions as a case study in how the lessons from this literature can be applied. We will be discussing both ascending and sealed-bid auction formats and the incentives for collusion embedded in each, but the focus will be on ascending auctions. Ascending auctions are the primary focus of the literature on collusion in auctions owing to the fact that ascending auctions are more susceptible to ‘in-auction’ collusion than sealed-bid auctions. The term in-auction collusion is used to refer to collusion that can emerge and be enforced inside a single auction.

Key concepts: Collusion, Common value auction, Bidding, Revenue, Variety (cybernetics), Commission, Microeconomics, Business

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Preventing collusion among firms in auctions — Research Paper | ScholarLens