Experimental Economics

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 247–267 | Cite as

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

  • Koji KotaniEmail author
  • Kenta Tanaka
  • Shunsuke Managi
Original Paper


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.


Marketable permits Economic experiments Double auction Uniform price auction Non-trader settings Trader settings 

JEL Classification

D44 Q50 C91 



The authors thank anonymous referees, Makoto Kakinaka and Hiroaki Miyamoto for their helpful comments, advice and supports. We are also grateful to the financial supports from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) as the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research B (16H03621), JSPS Specially Promoted Research and Ministry of Environment, Japan (S-16) and Kochi University of Technology.


  1. Anderson, C. M., & Sutinen, J. G. (2005). A laboratory assessment of tradable fishing allowances. Marince Resource Economics, 20, 1–20.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. M., & Sutinen, J. G. (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.Google Scholar
  3. Cason, T. N. (2010). What can laboratory experiments teach us about emissions permit market design? Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 39, 151–161.Google Scholar
  4. Cason, T. N., & Friedman, D. (1999). Learning in a laboratory market with random supply and demand. Experimental Economics, 2, 77–98.Google Scholar
  5. Cason, T. N., & Gangadharan, L. (2005). A laboratory comparison of uniform and discriminative price auctions for reducing non-point source pollution. Land Economics, 81, 51–70.Google Scholar
  6. Cason, T. N., & Gangadharan, L. (2006). Emissions variability in tradable permit markets with imperfect enforcement and banking. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 199–216.Google Scholar
  7. Cason, T. N., 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.Google Scholar
  8. Cason, T. N., & Plott, C. R. (1996). EPA’s new emission trading mechanism: A laboratory evaluation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 133–160.Google Scholar
  9. Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, D. D., & Holt, C. A. (1992). Experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Easley, D., & Ledyard, J. (1993). Theories of price formation and exchange in double oral auction. In D. Friedman & J. Rust (Eds.), The double auction market: Institutions, theories and evidence, chapter 3 (pp. 253–283). Boulder: Westview press.Google Scholar
  12. Farrell, M. J. (1966). Profitable speculation. Economica, 33, 183–193.Google Scholar
  13. Field, B. C., & Field, M. K. (2006). Environmental economics. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  14. Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.Google Scholar
  15. Godby, R. (2002). Market power in laboratory emission permit markets. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 279–318.Google Scholar
  16. Godby, R. W., Mestelman, S., Muller, R. A., & Welland, J. D. (1997). Emissions trading with shares and coupons when control over discharges is uncertain. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 359–381.Google Scholar
  17. Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A., 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.Google Scholar
  18. Hahn, R. W. (1989). Economic prescriptions for environmental problems: How the patient followed the doctor’s orders. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3, 95–114.Google Scholar
  19. Hahn, R. W., & Stavins, R. N. (2011). The effect of allowance allocations on cap-and-trade system performance. Journal of Law and Economics, 54, 267–294.Google Scholar
  20. Jamison, J. C., & Plott, C. R. (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.Google Scholar
  21. Kilian, L., & Murphy, D. P. (2014). The role of inventories and speculative trading in the global market for crude oil. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29, 454–478.Google Scholar
  22. Kilkenny, M. (2000). A classroom experiment about tradable permits. Review of Agricultural Economics, 22, 586–606.Google Scholar
  23. Kolstad, C. C. (2010). Environmental economics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ledyard, J. O., & Szakaly-Moore, K. (1994). Designing organizations for trading pollution rights. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25, 167–196.Google Scholar
  25. Lei, V., Noussair, C. N., & Plott, C. R. (2001). Nonspeculative bubbles in experimental asset markets: Lack of common knowledge of rationality vs. actual irrationality. Economica, 69, 831–859.Google Scholar
  26. Muller, R., & Mestelman, S. (1998). What have we learned from emissions trading experiments? Managerial and Decision Economics, 19, 225–238.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Noussair, C. N., Plott, C., & Riezman, R. (1995). An experimental investigation of the patterns of international trade. American Economic Review, 85, 462–491.Google Scholar
  30. Plott, C. R. (1983). Externalities and correctives policies in experimental markets. Economic Journal, 93, 106–127.Google Scholar
  31. Plott, C. R., & Gray, P. (1990). The multiple unit double auction. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 13, 245–258.Google Scholar
  32. Plott, C. R., & 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
  33. Smith, V. L., Williams, A. W., Bratton, W., & Vannoni, M. G. (1982). Market institutions: Double auctions vs. sealed bid-offer auctions. American Economic Review, 72, 58–77.Google Scholar
  34. Tietenberg, T. H. (2006). Emissions trading: Principles and practice. Washington: RFF Press.Google Scholar
  35. Van Boening, M. V., & Wilcox, N. T. (1996). Avoidable cost: Ride a double auction roller coaster. American Economic Review, 86, 461–477.Google Scholar
  36. Van Boening, M. V., Williams, A. W., & LaMaster, S. (1993). Price bubbles and crashes in experimental call markets. Economics Letters, 41, 179–185.Google Scholar
  37. Williams, A. W. (1980). Computerized double-auction markets: Some initial experimental results. Journal of Business, 53, 235–258.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for Future DesignKochi University of TechnologyKochi-shiJapan
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementKochi University of TechnologyKochi-shiJapan
  3. 3.Urban Institute, Kyusyu UniversityFukuokaJapan
  4. 4.College of BusinessRikkyo UniversityTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Faculty of EconomicsMusashi UniversityTokyoJapan
  6. 6.Departments of Urban and Environmental Engineering, School of EngineeringKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations