Integrating the Structural Auction Approach and Traditional Measures of Market Power



M2 are similar to M3 except that M1 does not include HHIjt, and M2 does not include
bid1, bid2, and bid3. Variance components model (M3) was estimated via maximum
likelihood (ML) using the NLMIXED Procedure in SAS 9.1 (SAS 2001-2003).

There are two null hypotheses of interest in model M3. The first null hypothesis
is that the coefficients for
bid1, bid2 and bid3 are jointly zero (H01 : ω14 = ω15 = ω16 = 0).
The second null hypothesis is that the coefficient for
HHI is zero (H02 : ω17 = 0). If both
H01 and H02 are rejected, then number of bidders and the number of firms contain unique
information, and suggest an encompassing model (
M3) rather than either model M1 or
M2. If both H01 and H02 are not rejected, then the number of bidders and the number of
firms contain the same information and either aggregate or disaggregate model could be
used. If only
H01 is rejected then a disaggregate model is favored, while if only H02 is
rejected an aggregate model is favored.

Estimation of a Structural Auction Model

This section reports the procedures used to estimate packer’s bid shading using the
structural auction model represented by equation (2.4a). The estimate of the auction
model is compared with an estimate of price markdowns computed directly from the data.
The estimation considers the number of potential bidders rather than the actual number of
bidders. This was due to the presence of numerous transactions where only one bidder
submitted a bid, which precluded estimation of bid shading using equation (2.4a).

The estimation of packer’s bid shading in equation (2.4a) uses the nonparametric
approach for estimating the structural auction model proposed by Guerre et al. (2000).
As equation (2.4a) shows, packer’s bid shading is the ratio of the bid probability
distribution
F(pijf ) to the product between bidders’ density function f ( pijf ) and the

21



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Commuting in multinodal urban systems: An empirical comparison of three alternative models
3. The name is absent
4. The Shepherd Sinfonia
5. Nonparametric cointegration analysis
6. The name is absent
7. The Demand for Specialty-Crop Insurance: Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard
8. The name is absent
9. Secondary school teachers’ attitudes towards and beliefs about ability grouping
10. The name is absent
11. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF COTTON AND PEANUT RESEARCH IN SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
12. Activation of s28-dependent transcription in Escherichia coli by the cyclic AMP receptor protein requires an unusual promoter organization
13. Multimedia as a Cognitive Tool
14. ROBUST CLASSIFICATION WITH CONTEXT-SENSITIVE FEATURES
15. The Dictator and the Parties A Study on Policy Co-operation in Mineral Economies
16. Visual Artists Between Cultural Demand and Economic Subsistence. Empirical Findings From Berlin.
17. Public infrastructure capital, scale economies and returns to variety
18. The name is absent
19. The name is absent
20. Climate change, mitigation and adaptation: the case of the Murray–Darling Basin in Australia