Advertisement

International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 991–1014 | Cite as

Stability and the immediate acceptance rule when school priorities are weak

  • Wonki Jo Cho
  • Battal Doğan
Original Paper
  • 243 Downloads

Abstract

In a model of school choice, we allow school priorities to be weak and study the preference revelation game induced by the immediate acceptance (IA) rule (also known as the Boston rule), or the IA game. When school priorities can be weak and matches probabilistic, three stability notions—ex post stability, ex ante stability, and strong ex ante stability—and two ordinal equilibrium notions—sd equilibrium and strong sd equilibrium—become available (“sd” stands for stochastic dominance). We show that for no combination of stability and equilibrium notions does the set of stable matches coincide with the set of equilibrium matches of the IA game. This stands in contrast with the existing result that the two sets are equal when priorities are strict. We also show that in the presence of weak priorities, the transition from the IA rule to the deferred acceptance rule may, in fact, harm some students.

Keywords

School choice Stability Immediate acceptance 

JEL Classification

C78 D71 D78 

References

  1. Abdulkadiroğlu A, Che Y-K, Yasuda Y (2011) Resolving conflicting preferences in school choice: the Boston mechanism reconsidered. Am Econ Rev 101:399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE, Sönmez T (2006) Changing the Boston school choice mechanism: strategy-proofness as equal access, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  3. Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: a mechanism design approach. Am Econ Rev 93:729–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkhoff G (1946) Three observations on linear algebra. Revi Univ Nac Tucuman Ser A 5:147–151Google Scholar
  5. Budish E, Che Y-K, Kojima F, Milgrom P (2013) Designing random allocation mechanisms: theory and applications. Am Econ Rev 103:585–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen Y, Sönmez T (2006) School choice: an experimental study. J Econ Theory 127:202–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehlers L, Massó J (2015) Matching markets under (in)complete information. J Econ Theory 157:295–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ekici Ö, Kesten O (2016) An equilibrium analysis of the probabilistic serial mechanism. Int J Game Theory 45:655–674Google Scholar
  9. Ergin H, Sönmez T (2006) Games of school choice under the Boston mechanism. J Public Econ 90:215–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gale D, Shapley L (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am Math Mon 69:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haeringer G, Klijn F (2009) Constrained school choice. J Econ Theory 144:1921–1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kagel JH, Roth AE (2000) The dynamics of reorganization in matching markets: a laboratory experiment motivated by a natural experiment. Q J Econ 115:201–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kesten O, Ünver MU (2015) A theory of school-choice lotteries. Theor Econ 10:543–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miralles A (2009) School choice: the case for the Boston mechanism. International Conference on Auctions, Market Mechanisms and Their Applications. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03821-1_9
  15. Roth A (2002) The Economist as engineer: game theory, experimentation, and computation as tools for economic design. Econometrica 70:1341–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sotomayor M (1996) Admission mechanisms of students to colleges. A game-theoretic modeling and analysis. Braz Rev Econ 16(1):25–63 [Annals of Brazilian Meeting of Econometrics, Florianópolis, Brazil (1995)] Google Scholar
  17. Sotomayor M (2008) The stability of the equilibrium outcomes in the admission games induced by stable matching rules. Int J Game Theory 36:621–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thomson W (2011) Strategy-proof Allocation Rules, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  19. Troyan P (2012) Comparing school choice mechanisms by interim and ex-ante welfare. Games Econ Behav 75:936–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ünver MU (2005) On the survival of some unstable two-sided matching mechanisms. Int J Game Theory 33:239–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. von Neumann J (1953) A certain zero-sum two-person game equivalent to the optimal assignment problem, Contributions to the Theory of Games, vol 2. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsSogang UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations