Publication: School Choice with Transferable Students Characteristics
Full text at PDC
Advisors (or tutors)
We consider school choice problems where school priorities depend on transfer-able student characteristics. In this framework, the tradeoff between efficiency and stability can be alleviated by forming fair Pareto improvements where a group of students may improve their assignment to schools by exchanging their positions and transferable characteristics at the schools they are initially assigned to without generating justified envy for the remaining students. We define the student exchange with transferable characteristics (SETC) class of algorithms. Every algorithm in the SETC class starts from an initial matching of students to schools and an initial allocation of transferable characteristics and proposes a sequence of fair Pareto improvements, until the point at which an additional efficiency gain implies a violation of the school priorities that cannot be solved with a reallocation of transferable characteristics.
First Version: July 27, 2020 This Version: August 3, 2022
References Abdulkadiroglu, A., Y.K. Che, P. Pathak, A.E. Roth, and O. Tercieux (2020) “Efficiency, Justified Envy, and Incentives in Priority-Based Matching”. American Economic Review: Insights 2-4, 425-442. Abdulkadiroglu, A., P. Pathak, and A.E. Roth (2009) “Strategy-proofness versus Effi- ciency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match”. American Economic Review 99-5, 1954-1978. Abdulkadiroglu, A., P. Pathak, A.E. Roth, and T. Sönmez (2005) “The Boston Public School Match”. American Economic Review 95-2, 368-371. Abdulkadiroglu, A., and T. Sönmez (2003) “School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach”. American Economic Review 93-3, 729-747. Alcalde, J., and A. Romero-Medina (2017) “Fair Student Placement”. Theory and Decision 83, 293-307. Alva, S., and V. Manjunath (2019) “Strategy-Proof Pareto Improvements”. Journal of Economic Theory 181, 121-142. Arnosti, N. (2016) “Centralized Clearinghouse Design: A Quantity-Quality Trade-off”. Working Paper, Columbia Business School. Ashlagi, I., A. Nikzad, and A. Romm (2019) “Assigning More Students to Their Top Choices: A Comparison of Tie-Breaking Rules”. Games and Economic Behavior 115, 767-187. Balinski, M., and T. Sönmez (1999) “A Tale of Two Mechanisms: Student Placement”. Journal of Economic Theory 84, 73-94. Blum, Y., A.E. Roth, and U. Rothblum (1997) “Vacancy Chains and Equilibration in Senior-Level Labor Markets”. Journal of Economic Theory 76, 362-411. Casalmiglia, C., C. Fu, and M. Güell (2020) “Structural Estimation of a Model of School Choices: the Boston Mechanism vs. Its Alternatives”. Journal of Political Economy 128–2, 642-680. Combe, J. (2022) “Matching with Ownership” Journal of Mathematical Economics 98: Art. 102563. Dogan, B., and L. Ehlers (2021) “Minimally Unstable Pareto Improvements over Deferred Acceptance”. Theoretical Economics 16, 1249–1279. Dogan, B., and L. Ehlers (2022) “Robust Minimal Instability of the Top Trading Cycles Mechanism”. American Economic Journal: Microeconmics, forthcoming. Duddy, C. (2019) “The Structure of Priority in the School Choice Problem”. Economics and Philosophy 35, 361-381. Dur, U.M., A. Gitmez, and Ö. Yılmaz (2019) “School Choice under Partial Fairness”. Theoretical Economics 14-4, 1309–1346. Dur, U.M., S.D. Kominers, P.A. Pathak, and T. S ̈onmez (2018) “Reserve Design: Unin- tended Consequences and The Demise of Boston’s Walk Zones”. Journal of Political Economy 126-6, 2457-2479. Dur, U.M., and T. Morrill (2017) “The Impossibility of Restricting Tradeable Priorities in School Assignment”. Working Paper, North Carolina State University. Ehlers, L., and T. Morrill (2020) “(Il)legal Assignments in School Choice”. Review of Economic Studies 87, 1837-1875. Erdil, A., and H. Ergin (2008) “What’s the Matter with Tie-Breaking? Improving Efficiency in School Choice”. American Economic Review 98-3, 669-689. Gale, D., and L. Shapley (1962) “College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage”. American Mathematical Monthly 69, 9-15. Górtazar, L., D. Mayor, and J. Montalbán (2020) “School Choice Priorities and School Segregation: Evidence from Madrid”. Stockholm University - Swedish Institute for Social Research, Working Paper Series. Hakimov, R., and O. Kesten (2018) “The Equitable Top Trading Cycles Mechanism for School Choice”. International Economic Review 59-4, 2219-2258. Kesten, O. (2010) “School Choice with Consent”. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 125, 1297-1348. Kesten, O., and M. Kurino (2019) “Strategy-proof Improvements upon Deferred Ac- ceptance: A Maximal Domain for Possibility”. Games and Economic Behavior 117, 120-143. Kitahara, M., and Y. Okumura (2021) “Improving Efficiency in School Choice under Partial Priorities”. International Journal of Game Theory 50: 971–987. Klaus, B., and F. Klijn (2021) “Minimal-Access Rights in School Choice and the Deferred Acceptance Mechanism”. Barcelona GSE Working Paper Series n. 1264. Pathak, P. (2016) “What Really Matters in Designing School Choice Mechanisms”. Ad- vances in Economics and Econometrics, 11 th World Congress of the Econometric Society. Reny, P. (2022) “Efficient Matching in the School Choice Problem”. American Economic Review 112-6, 2025-2043. Ruijs, N., and H. Oosterbeek (2019) “School Choice in Amsterdam: Which Schools are Chosen When School Choice is Free?” Education Finance and Policy 14-1, 1-30. Shapley, L., and H. Scarf (1974) “On Cores and Indivisibility”. Journal of Mathematical Economics. 1, 23–37. Tang, Q., and J. Yu, (2014) “A New Perspective on Kesten’s School Choice with Consent Idea”. Journal of Economic Theory 154, 543-561. Tang, Q., and Y. Zhang, (2021) “Weak Stability and Pareto Efficiency in School Choice”. Economic Theory 71, 533-552. Troyan, P., D. Delacrétaz., and A. Kloosterman (2020) “Essentially Stable Matching”. Games and Economic Behavior 120, 370-390. Van der Spiegel, S., P. Schröder-Bäck, and H. Brand (2020), “Organ transplantation and the European Union, 2009–2015 developments”. Transplant International, 33, 603-611.