Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 23–33 | Cite as

Manipulability in matching markets: conflict and coincidence of interests

Original Paper

Abstract

We study comparative statics of manipulations by women in the men-proposing deferred acceptance mechanism in the two-sided one-to-one marriage market. We prove that if a group of women weakly successfully manipulates or employs truncation strategies, then all other women weakly benefit and all men are weakly harmed. We show that these results do not appropriately generalize to the many-to-one college admissions model.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Crawford VP (1991) Comparative statics in matching markets. J Econ Theory 54(1): 389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dubins LE, Freedman DA (1981) Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley algorithm. American Mathematical Monthly 88(7): 485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gale D, Shapley LS (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am Math Monthly 69(1): 9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Knuth DE (1976) Mariages stables. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, MontréalGoogle Scholar
  5. Kojima F, Pathak PA (2009) Incentives and stability in large two-sided matching markets. Am Econ Rev 99(3): 608–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ma J (2010) The Singleton core in the college admissions problem and its application to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). Games Econ Behav 69(1): 150–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mongell S, Roth AE (1991) Sorority rush as a two-sided matching mechanism. Am Econ Rev 81(3): 441–464Google Scholar
  8. Roth AE (1982) The economics of matching: stability and incentives. Math Oper Res 7(4): 617–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Roth AE (1984a) Stability and polarization of interests in job matching. Econometrica 52(1): 47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Roth AE (1984b) Mispresentation and stability in the marriage problem. J Econ Theory 34(2): 383–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Roth AE (1985a) The college admission problem is not equivalent to the marriage problem. J Econ Theory 36(2): 277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roth AE (1985b) Conflict and coincidence of interest in job matching: some new results and open questions. Math Oper Res 10(3): 379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roth AE (2008) Deferred acceptance algorithms: history, theory, practice, and open questions. Int J Game Theory 36(3): 537–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roth AE., Sotomayor MAO (1989) The college admissions problem revisited. Econometrica 57(3): 559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Roth AE, Sotomayor MAO (1990) Two-sided matching: a study in game-theoretic modeling and analysis, Econometric Society Monograph Series. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Roth AE, Vande Vate JH (1991) Incentives in two-sided matching with random stable mechanisms. Econ Theory 1(1): 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Economic Analysis (CSIC)BellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations