Dynamics in Non-Binding Procurement Auctions with Boundedly Rational Bidders

  • Domenico Colucci
  • Nicola Doni
  • Vincenzo ValoriEmail author


Auction theory has always recognised that in many settings bidders’ strategies can be influenced by the revelation of some information that is privately held by the auctioneer. Usually it is assumed that the auctioneer holds some information regarding the item put up for auction. As a consequence, its revelation can allow bidders to have a more accurate estimate of their valuation for the object and to make less uncertain their utility in case their bid is accepted.1

Some recent papers investigate the importance of a different kind of auctioneer’s private information: in multidimensional auctions, bidders can be ignorant about the real awarding rule. Katok and Wambach (2008) define this competitive mechanism as “non-binding auctions”. More specifically, it is often assumed that a buyer can rank different bids according not only to the prices, but also to the quality associated to each proposals. The qualitative assessment usually depends on buyer’s preferences that can be her private information because they are related to her tastes or to her specific requirements.2 In this case bidders can always calculate thoroughly the ex-post profit associated to each specific bid; however, the information policy adopted by the buyer influences their estimate of the probability to be the winner. When the buyer chooses to reveal privately (publicly) her information suppliers are involved in a standard auction setting, with independent private (public) values. Conversely, the case in which the buyer conceals her information represents a novelty in the auction literature, and that is why we want to explore in more depth the characteristics of this game and the properties of its Nash equilibrium.


Nash Equilibrium Reaction Function Auction Model Cournot Model Hotelling Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AN, M.Y. (1998) Logconcavity versus logconvexity: a complete characterization. Journal of Economic Theory, 50, 350–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagnoli, M. & Bergstrom, T. (2005) Log-concave probability and its applications. Economic Theory, 26, 445–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkley Rosser, J., Jr. (2002) The development of complex oligopoly dynamics theory. In T. Puu & I. Sushko (Eds.), Oligopoly dynamics: models and tools. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Board, S. (2009) Revealing information in auctions: the allocation effect. Economic Theory, 38, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cason, T., Gangadharan, L., & Duke, C. (2003) A laboratory study of auctions for reducing non-point source pollution. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46, 446–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, C., Laplagne, P., & Appels, D. (2003) The role of auctions in allocating public resources. Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper. Productivity Commission, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  7. Gal-Or, E., Gal-Or, M., & Dukes, A. (2007) Optimal information revelation in procurement schemes. Rand Journal of Economics, 38, 400–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ganuza, J.J. (2004) Ignorance promotes competition: an auction model with endogenous private valuations. Rand Journal of Economics, 35, 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Katok, E. & Wambach, A. (2008) Collusion in dynamic buyer-determined reverse auctions. CSCR Working Papers n. 08–13.Google Scholar
  10. Kim, J. (2007) The intensity of competition in the hotelling model: a new generalisation and applications. MPRA Paper n. 6876.Google Scholar
  11. Milgrom, P. & Weber, R. (1982) A theory of auctions and competitive bidding. Econometrica, 50, 1089–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Perloff, J. & Salop, S. (1985) Equilibrium with product differentiation. Review of Economic Studies, 52, 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Puu, T. (1998) The chaotic duopolists revisited. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 33, 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Puu, T. & Gardini, L. (2002) Hotelling type duopoly and oligopoly. In T. Puu & I. Sushko (Eds.) Oligopoly dynamics: models and tools. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Rezende, L. (2009) Biased procurement auctions. Economic Theory, 38, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Theocharis, R. (1960) On the stability of the cournot solution on the oligopoly problem. Review of Economic Studies, 27, 133–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facoltà di EconomiaUniversità di FirenzeFirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations