Ingraham, A T (2001) Bidder-auctioneer cheating in sealed-bid auctions. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
Abstract
This dissertation investigates the empirical and game theoretic issues that arise when a single bidder and an auctioneer collude in a sealed bid auction market. Chapter 1 provides a background to the market used as a case study in future chapters, the New York City School Construction Authority auction market. Chapter 2 models bidder-auctioneer cheating as a distortion between the first and second bids, and proposes a test in order to discern whether or not cheating has occurred in a particular auction dataset. Applying this test to data from the New York City School Construction Authority auctions from 1989 to 1996, I find evidence that two auctioneers who were never charged with bid-rigging may have been guilty of bidder-auctioneer cheating. Chapter 3 considers the effect of the suspicion of bidder-auctioneer cheating on the equilibrium bid functions of honest bidders.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Cramton, P C |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | market; case study |
| Index terms: | distortion, cheating, dataset, dissertation, case study, educational building construction, New York, evidence, bidder |
| Subjects: | data management, building construction, bidding, evaluation and assessment methods, behavioural issues, Geography, networking, data collection methods, research dissemination and communication |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Design Practice, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Ethics, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here