Roth, Alvin E. “Laboratory experimentation in economics: A methodological overview." The Economic Journal 98.393 (1988): 974-1031. [PDF] [PDF2]


Laboratory experimentation in economics

Roth, Alvin E. “Laboratory experimentation in economics." Economics & Philosophy 2.2 (1986): 245-273. [PDF]

==original abstract==





  • AlgerDan1984. “Equilibria in the Laboratory: Experiments with Oligopoly Markets where Goods are Made-to-Order.” Working paper no. 121, Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission.Google Scholar
  • BergJoyce E.DaleyLane A.DickhautJohn W., and O’BrienJohn R.. Forthcoming. “Controlling Preferences for Lotteries on Units of Experimental Exchange.” Quarterly Journal of Economics.Google Scholar
  • BewleyTruman. Forthcoming. Advances in Economic Theory, Fifth World Congress. New YorkCambridge University Press.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • BinmoreKenRubinsteinAriel, and WollinskyAsher1985. “The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling.” Theoretical Economics Discussion Paper Series, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  • BinmoreKenShakedAvner, and SuttonJohn1985. “Testing Noncooperative Bargaining Theory: A Preliminary Study.” American Economic Review 75:1178–80.Google Scholar
  • BinmoreKenShakedAvner, and SuttonJohn1986. “An Outside Option Experiment.” Mimeo, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  • ChatterjeeKalyan1985. “Disagreement in Bargaining: Models with Incomplete Information.” In Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining, edited by RothA. E.CambridgeCambridge University Press, pp. 926.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • EdgeworthF. Y. 1881Mathematical PsychicsLondonKegan Paul.Google Scholar
  • FerberRobert, and HirschWerner Z.1982Social Experimentation and Economic Policy (Cambridge Surveys of Economic Literature). CambridgeCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • FourakerLawrence E., and SiegelSidney1963Bargaining BehaviorNew YorkMcGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  • GretherDavid M., and PlottCharles R.1984. “The Effects of Market Practices in Oligopolistic Markets: An Experimental Examination of the Ethyl Case.” Economic Inquiry 22:479507.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • HausmannJerry A., and WiseDavid A. (editors). 1985Social Experimentation. National Bureau of Economic Research: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • HoltCharles A.LanganLoren, and VillamilAnne P.1984. “Market Power in Oral Double Auctions: Convergence to Competitive Equilibrium Prices Reconsidered.” Working paper.Google Scholar
  • HoltCharles A., and ScheffmanDavid T.1985. “The Effects of Advance Notice and Best-Price Policies: Theory, with Applications to Ethyl.” Working paper (10).Google Scholar
  • HoltCharles A., and VillamilAnne P.1984. “The Effect of Market Power on the Direction of Convergence in Oral Double Auctions.” Working paper (12), University of Virginia, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  • HongJames T., and PlottCharles R.1982. “Rate Filing Policies for Inland Water Transportation: An Experimental Approach.” Bell Journal of Economics 13:119.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • KagelJohn H. Forthcoming. “Economics According to the Rats (and Pigeons Too): What Have We Learned, and What Can We Hope to Learn.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • KagelJohn H.BattalioRaymond C., and GreenLeonard1981. “Income-Leisure Tradeoffs of Animal Workers.” American Economic Review 71:621–32.Google Scholar
  • KahnemanDaniel, and TverskyAmos1984. “Choices, Values, and Frames.” American Psychologist 39:341–50.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • KalaiEhud, and SmorodinskyMeir1975. “Other Solutions to Nash’s Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 43:513–18.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • KetchamJ.SmithV. L., and WilliamsA.1984. “A Comparison of Posted-Offer and Double-Auction Pricing Institutions.” Review of Economic Studies 51:595614.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • KihlstromR.RothA. E., and SchmeidlerD.1981. “Risk Aversion and Solutions to Nash’s Bargaining Problems.” In Game Theory and Mathematical Economics, edited by MoeschlinO. and PallaschkeD.AmsterdamNorth-Holland, pp. 6571.Google Scholar
  • KnezMark, and SmithVernon L.. Forthcoming. “Hypothetical Evaluations and Preference Reversals in the Context of Asset Trading.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.CambridgeCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • MachinaMark J. 1983. “The Economic Theory of Individual Behavior Toward Risk: Theory, Evidence, and New Directions.” Technical Report #433, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  • MurnighanJ. KeithRothAlvin E., and SchoumakerFrançoise1985. “Risk Aversion in Bargaining: An Experimental Study.” Working paper.Google Scholar
  • NashJohn1950. “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 28:155–62.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • PerlesM. A., and MaschlerM.1981. “The Super-Additive Solution for the Nash Bargaining Game.” International Journal of Game Theory 10:163–93.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • PlottCharles R. 1982. “Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 20:14851527.Google Scholar
  • PlottCharles R. Forthcoming. “Dimensions of Parallelism: Some Policy Applications of Experimental Methods.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • PlottCharles R. 1985. “Laboratory Experiments in Economics: The Implications of Posted Price Institutions.” Mimeo, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  • PlottCharles R., and SmithVernon L.1978. “An Experimental Examination of Two Exchange Institutions.” Review of Economic Studies 45:133–53.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E. 1979Axiomatic Models of BargainingBerlinSpringer Verlag.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E. 1983. “Toward a Theory of Bargaining: An Experimental Study in Economics.” Science 220687–91.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., (editor). 1985a. Game-Theoretic Models of BargainingNew YorkCambridge University Press.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E. 1985b. “A Note on Risk Aversion in a Perfect Equilibrium Model of Bargaining.” Econometrica 53:207–11.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E. Forthcoming. “Bargaining Phenomena and Bargaining Theory.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., (editor). Forthcoming. Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of ViewNew YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., and MaloufMichael W. K.1979. “Game-Theoretic Models and the Role of Information in Bargaining.” Psychological Review 86:574–94.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E.MaloufMichale W. K., and MurnighanJ. Keith1981. “Sociological Versus Strategic Factors in Bargaining.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2:153–77.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., and MurnighanJ. Keith1982. “The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study.” Econometrica 50:1123–42.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., and RothblumUriel G.1982. “Risk Aversion and Nash’s Solution for Bargaining Games with Risky Outcomes.” Econometrica 50:639–47.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RothAlvin E., and SchoumakerFrançoise1983. “Expectations and Reputations in Bargaining: An Experimental Study.” American Economic Review 73:362–72.Google Scholar
  • RubinsteinAriel1982. “Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model.” Econometrica 50:97109.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RubinsteinAriel1985. “Choice of Conjectures in a Bargaining Game with Incomplete Information.” In Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining, edited by RothA. E., pp. 99114New YorkCambridge University Press.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • RubinsteinAriel. Forthcoming. “A Sequential Theory of Bargaining.” In Advances in Economic Theory, edited by BewleyTrumanNew YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • SeltenReinhard1972. “Equal Share Analysis of Characteristic Function Experiments.” In Contributions to Experimental Economics III, edited by SauermannH.TübingenJ. C. B. Mahr, pp. 130–65.Google Scholar
  • SeltenReinhard1982. “Equal Division Payoff Bounds for 3-Person Characteristic Function Experiments.” In Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making, edited by TietzR.BerlinSpringer Verlag, pp. 265–75.Google Scholar
  • SeltenReinhard. Forthcoming. “Equity and Coalition Bargaining in Experimental 3-Person Games.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • SeltenReinhard, and KrischkerWilhelm1982. “Comparison of Two Theories for Characteristic Function Experiments.” In Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making, edited by TietzR.BerlinSpringer Verlag, pp. 259–64.Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1964. “Effect of Market Organization on Competitive Equilibrium.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 78:181201.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1976. “Bidding and Auctioning Institutions: Experimental Results.” In Bidding and Auctioning for Procurement and Allocation, edited by AmihudY.New YorkNew York University Press, pp. 4364.Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1981. “An Empirical Study of Decentralized Institutions of Monopoly Restraint.” In Essays in Contemporary Fields of Economics, edited by HorwichG. and QuirkJ.LafayetteW.Purdue University83106.Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1982a. “Markets as Economizers of Information: Experimental Examination of the ‘Hayek Hypothesis.’” Economic Inquiry 20:165–79.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L. 1982b. “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review 72:923–55.Google Scholar
  • SmithVernon L., and WilliamsArlington W.1981. “The Boundaries of Competitive Price Theory: Convergence, Expectations and Transaction Cost.” Paper presented at the Public Choice Society Meetings, New Orleans, 03 13–15.Google Scholar
  • ThalerRichard. Forthcoming. “The Psychology of Choice and the Assumptions of Economics.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, edited by RothAlvin E.New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  • TverskyAmos, and KahnemanDaniel1981. ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211:453–58.CrossRef | Google Scholar
  • WilsonRobert B. Forthcoming. “Game Theoretic Analysis of Trading Processes.” In Advances in Economic Theory, edited by BewleyTruman. Fifth World Congress. New YorkCambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Article: 5G 競標第 5 天,第 42 回合暫總標金 346.86 億元

5G 競標第 5 天,第 42 回合暫總標金 346.86 億元

5G 第一波釋照 10 日開始競標,底價訂為新台幣 300 億元,由於 28GHz 和 1800MHz 仍有區塊無業者出價,靠著最熱門的頻段 3.5GHz 競爭,暫時總得標金在第 23 回合超越底價 300 億元,業界認為這次的競標偏向冷靜、理性。

今天競標進入第 5 天,第 42 回合總標金為 346.86 億元,最熱門的頻段 3.5GH z暫得標金 336.56 億元,28GHz 的熱度提升,暫時得標 10 個區塊,暫得標金 10.3 億元,1800MHz 尚無人出手。

The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for design economics

Roth, Alvin E. “The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for design economics." Econometrica 70.4 (2002): 1341-1378. [PDF] [**]


Economists have lately been called upon not only to analyze markets, but to design them. Market design involves a responsibility for detail, a need to deal with all of a market’s complications, not just its principle features. Designers therefore cannot work only with the simple conceptual models used for theoretical insights into the general working of markets. Instead, market design calls for an engineering approach. Drawing primarily on the design of the entry level labor market for American doctors (the National Resident Matching Program), and of the auctions of radio spectrum conducted by the Federal Communications Commission, this paper makes the case that experimental and computational economics are natural complements to game theory in the work of design. The paper also argues that some of the challenges facing both markets involve dealing with related kinds of complementarities, and that this suggests an agenda for future theoretical research.

KEYWORDS:Market design, game theory, experimental economics, computational economics

Mindful economics: The production, consumption, and value of beliefs

Bénabou, Roland, and Jean Tirole. “Mindful economics: The production, consumption, and value of beliefs." Journal of Economic Perspectives 30.3 (2016): 141-64. [PDF]


人類的 heuristics and biases (Tversky and Kahneman 1974)

  • over-confidence,
    (as discussed in a “Symposium on Overconfidence” in the Fall 2015 issue of this journal)
    YNY: moderate overconfidence can be helpful to enhance people’s ability to do things and interact with others successfully. Overoptimistic individuals often work more, save more, expect to retire later, and much healthier.
  • confirmation bias,
  • distorted probability weighting

本文回顧 growing literature on motivated beliefs and reasoning


==cited by Bruno S. Frey==

[This article] provides a most useful survey of recent insights of psychology but also makes a successful effort to integrate them into economics. They deal with heuristics and biases inconsistent with the standard homo oeconomicus such as over-confidence, confirmation bias, distorted probability weighting, and other cognitive mistakes.

The economics of two-sided markets

Rysman, Marc. “The economics of two-sided markets." Journal of economic perspectives 23.3 (2009): 125-43. [aeaweb];[PDF][**]

==first para.==

At a local Best Buy, a child places a new Sony PlayStation 3 on the cashier’ scounter while the parents dig out their Visa card. The gaming system and the payment card may appear to have little connection other than this purchase. However, these two items share an important characteristic that is generating a series of economic insights and has important implications for strategic decision making and economic policy making. Both video game systems and payment cards are examples of two-sided markets.

如何得知期刊是否收錄於Web of Science資料庫?


可利用資料庫出版社提供的 Master Journal List 進行查找。茲將查找方式說明如下:【English version please see this article

1. 請連線Master Journal List網頁:

2. 若欲瀏覽期刊收錄清單,請點選網頁下方的資料庫名稱。

SCIE 全稱為 Science Citation Index Expanded
SSCI 全稱為 Social Sciences Citation Index

以 Agricultural Finance Review 為例, 蒐尋結果如下


Theory and experiment: What are the questions?

Smith, Vernon L. “Theory and experiment: What are the questions?." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 73.1 (2010): 3-15. [PDF];[my notes]


Smith 提到了 OPM (other person’s money) 問題,可以用以下的方式解決

We could give the constant positive sum ultimatum game economic content as follows: Each player provides $M of his own money. Some procedure is used for pairing the subjects, and determining who is to be Player 1 and who Player 2; this procedure in some variations might incorporate an earned and/or investment feature. It is understood that their pairing has economic significance in the sense that there are synergistic gains from the interaction equal to some fixed sum y > 2M. The experimenter provides only the surplus above 2M which represents the gains from specialization and exchange, as this is the one reliable source of a “free lunch” that converts economic systems into non-zero sum games. Hence, the total to be shared under the property right rules of the game is 2M + y, making it feasible for each to receive a share of the jointly created net gain above their pooled initial contribution, 2M.