Collusion mechanisms in procurement auctions: An experimental investigation
Werner Güth (),
Jeannette Brosig-Koch and
Papers on Strategic Interaction from Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group
Collusive agreements are often observed in procurement auctions. They are probably more easily achieved when competitors’ costs are easily estimated. If, however, the individual costs of bidders are private information, effective ring formation is difficult to realize. We compare experimentally different coordination mechanisms in a first-price procurement auction in how they promote the prospects of collusive arrangements. One mechanism allows bidders to coordinate by means of unrestricted pre-play communication. The second one enables bidders to restrict their bidding range and the last one gives them the opportunity to implement mutual shareholding. According to our results firstprice procurement is quite collusion-proof when allowing for the latter two coordination mechanisms whereas, on average, pre-play communication increases bidders' profits.
Keywords: competition; collusion; auction; bidding; public procurement (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C72 H57 K42 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-com, nep-exp, nep-fmk, nep-gth, nep-law and nep-pbe
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: /RePEc:esi:discus:2006-14
Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
http://www.econ.mpg. ... arch/ESI/discuss.php
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Papers on Strategic Interaction from Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group
Contact information at EDIRC.
Series data maintained by Karin Richter (). This e-mail address is bad, please contact .