Journals / Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

The evaluation of Akerlof's lemon market model within the frame of Austrian information theories and e‐trade

Avusturya okulu bilgi teorileri ve e‐ticaret çerçevesinde Akerlof'un limon piyasa modelinin değerlendirilmesi

Pages
175–190
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Contrary to Akerlof’s assertion that asymmetric information leads to market failure, the dynamic nature of markets elicits cooperation and credible commitments.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article describes the importance and evolution of trust and reputation in markets with a theoretical analysis of Internet markets.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using Akerlof’s lemons model as a point of reference, the author demonstrates both the proclivity for indivuduals to act cooperatively in markets and the robust nature of markets at eliciting cooperation when simple trust Networks fail.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Contrary to Akerlof’s assertion that asymmetric information leads to market failure, the dynamic nature of markets elicits cooperation and credible commitments.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article describes the importance and evolution of trust and reputation in markets with a theoretical analysis of Internet markets. The cooperation required for markets to function efficiently is discussed using theoretical examples of various Internet markets, most notably, eBay. Using Akerlof’s lemons model as a point of reference, the author demonstrates both the proclivity for indivuduals to act cooperatively in markets and the robust nature of markets at eliciting cooperation when simple trust Networks fail. Contrary to Akerlof’s assertion that asymmetric information leads to market failure, the dynamic nature of markets elicits cooperation and credible commitments.

Özet

Bu çalışma, piyasalarda güven ve itibarın önem ve gelişim sürecini internet piyasasının teorik bir analizi ile anlatmaktadır. Piyasaların fonksiyonel etkinliği için gerekli olan işbirliği, eBay başta olmak üzere değişik internet piyasası örnekleri kullanılarak tartışılmaktadır. Çıkış noktası olarak Akerlof’un “limon modeli” kullanılarak hem bireylerin piyasalarda işbirliği eğiliminde oldukları hem de basit güven ağları başarısızlığı durumunda işbirliği sağlayan piyasaların sağlam yapısı gösterilmektedir. Bu anlamda asimetrik bilginin piyasa başarısızlığına yol açtığını öne süren Akerlof’un yaklaşımının tersine, piyasaların dinamik karakteri işbirliği ve güvenilir taahhütler sağlayabilir sonuçlar ortaya çıkarabilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALP, S. (2022). The evaluation of Akerlof's lemon market model within the frame of Austrian information theories and e‐trade. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 175–190. https://ajindex.com/articles/505644

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Akerlof, G. (1970), “The Market For Lemons: Quality Under Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (8), 488–500.
  2. Alp S. ve A. Karakaş (2008), “Asimetrik Bilgi Teorisi Karşısında Hayek’in Ekonomik Yaklaşımları: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz”, Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 51‐52, 215‐230. Andrews T. and C. Benzing (2007), “The Determinants of Price in Internet Auctions of Used Cars”, Atlantic Economic Journal, 35, 43–57.
  3. Ba, S. and P. A. Pavlou (2002), “Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premium and Buyer Behavior”, MIS Quarterly, 26 (3), 243–268.
  4. Bajari, P. and A. Hortacsu (2004), “Economic Insights from Internet Auctions”, Journal of Economic Literature, 42 (2), 457–486.
  5. Birchler, U. and M. Bütler (2007),
  6. Information Economics, New‐York: Routledge. Boettke, P.J. and P. T. Leeson (2004), “Liberalism, Socialism, and Robust Political Economy”, Journal of Markets & Morality, 7 (1), 99‐111. Brown J. and J. Morgan. (2006), “Reputation in Online Markets: Some Negative Feedback”, www.imbs.uci.edu/tr/abs/2006/mbs06_10.pdf, (Erişim: 10.02.2009).
  7. Carsrud, A. L. and M. E. Brannback (2007), Entrepreneurship (Greenwood Guides to Business and Economics), Greenwood Press.
  8. Cowen, T. and E. Crampton (2002), “Introduction”, Ed: T. Cowen and E. Crampton, Market Failure or Success: The New Debate, The Independendent Institute Books, 1‐34. Doney, P. M. and P. Cannon (1997), “An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer‐Seller Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, 61 (2), 35‐51. Drucker, P. (1993), Kapitalist Ötesi Toplum, (Çev: Belkıs Çorakçı Dişbudak), İstanbul: İnkılâp Yayınları.
  9. Foss, N. (2000), “Austrian Economics and Game Theory: A Stocktaking and an Evaluation”, Review of Austrian Economics, 13, 41–58.
  10. Hayek, F. A. (1945), “The Use of Knowledge in Society”, American Economic Review, 35 (4), 519–30.
  11. Ioannides, S. (1999), “Towards an Austrian Perspective on the Firm”, Review of Austrian Economics, 11, 77–97.
  12. Keller, T. and S. O. Tergan (2005), “Visualizing Knovledge and Information: An Introduction”, LNCS:3426‐ Berlin, 1–23.
  13. Löfgren, K.G.; T. Persson and J. W. Weibull (2002), “Markets with Asymmetric Information: The Contributions of George Akerlof, Michael Spence and Joseph Stiglitz”, Scandinav Journal.of Economics, 104 (2), 195–211. Lucking‐Reiley, D. and D. F. Spulber (2001), “Business‐to‐Business Electronic Commerce”, J. Econ. Perspect., 15 (1), 55–68. Macho‐Stadler, I. and J. D. Perez‐Castrillo (2