2017Economic RecordOpen access

How Do People Design a Mechanism? Experimental Evidence

Hugh Sibly, John Tisdell, Shane Evans

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

We use an economic experiment to identify how people design a mechanism. Our experimental framework is adapted from the market framework utilised by Maskin and Riley, who considered a monopolist seller of a homogeneous good that uses non‐linear pricing under incomplete information. Approximately 30 per cent of participants’ offers in each treatment were incentive‐compatible (separating) double offers, a requirement of the optimal mechanism. A similar percentage of offers in each treatment were single (non‐separating) offers, which do not require participants to address incentive compatibility. After sufficient rounds, the design of double offers converged to the schedule identified by Maskin and Riley, while the design of single offers converged to the optimal non‐separating (single) offer.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

We use an economic experiment to identify how people design a mechanism. Our experimental framework is adapted from the market framework utilised by Maskin and Riley, who considered a monopolist seller of a homogeneous good that uses non‐linear pricing under incomplete information. Approximately 30 per cent of participants’ offers in each treatment were incentive‐compatible (separating) double offers, a requirement of the optimal mechanism. A similar percentage of offers in each treatment were single (non‐separating) offers, which do not require participants to address incentive compatibility. After sufficient rounds, the design of double offers converged to the schedule identified by Maskin and Riley, while the design of single offers converged to the optimal non‐separating (single) offer.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

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

We use an economic experiment to identify how people design a mechanism. Our experimental framework is adapted from the market framework utilised by Maskin and Riley, who considered a monopolist seller of a homogeneous good that uses non‐linear pricing under incomplete information. Approximately 30 per cent of participants’ offers in each treatment were incentive‐compatible (separating) double offers, a requirement of the optimal mechanism. A similar percentage of offers in each treatment were single (non‐separating) offers, which do not require participants to address incentive compatibility. After sufficient rounds, the design of double offers converged to the schedule identified by Maskin and Riley, while the design of single offers converged to the optimal non‐separating (single) offer.

Key concepts: Incentive compatibility, Mechanism design, Incentive, Homogeneous, Compatibility (geochemistry), Schedule, Microeconomics, Mechanism (biology)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
How Do People Design a Mechanism? Experimental Evidence — Research Paper | ScholarLens