Michael Giberson October 7th, 2008

So, where is the post-election party going to be?
No, I don’t mean the post-election gatherings by the candidates and their supporters, I mean the post-election gathering of academics and other researchers to assess what has been learned about the performance of prediction markets over the 2008 presidential campaign cycle.
I’ve checked the usual suspects and found nothing.
(The Southern Economic Association meeting this year is in Washington, D.C., a few weeks after the election. It would be an excellent time and place for an early post-mortem on the performance of prediction markets addressing the 2008 U.S. presidential election. But a look at the program doesn’t reveal any related panels. (The deadline for submission of abstracts was April 1, 2008.) In January 2008, the American Economic Association meetings featured a panel put together by Eric Zitzewitz. The next American Economic Association meeting is in San Francisco in January, but from my scan of the preliminary program no prediction market sessions are planned. (You really have to plan ahead for the AEA meetings, the deadline was February 28.))
This ongoing election cycle has featured an explosion of interest in political prediction markets, periodic allegations of manipulation and related analysis (and here, and here, and here, and here, etc.), innovations in market design (and disputations thereof) and various claims of market failure. A lot has happened. What have we learned?
Where is the post-election academic conference on prediction market performance?
(And, in a related question, where is the post-conference party going to be?)
Tags: analysis, conferences, manipulation, prediction markets