Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 461–478 | Cite as

An incompatibility between recursive unanimity and strategy-proofness in two-sided matching problems

  • Takumi KongoEmail author
Original Paper


In this article, we study the incompatibilities for the properties on matching rules in two-sided many-to-one matching problems under responsive preferences. We define a new property called respect for recursive unanimity. This property requires that if every agent matches with its first choice among its really possible choices that are based on a recursive procedure like the well-known top trading cycles algorithm, then we should respect it. More precisely, given a matching problem, we exclude the agents whose first choices are satisfied without any discrepancy among them, and consider the restricted matching problems of the remaining agents. If we reach a state in which all agents are excluded by repeating this procedure, then we should respect the outcome. This property is weaker than stability and is stronger than respect for unanimity (that is also known as weak unanimity). We show that there are no strategy-proof matching rules that respect recursive unanimity.


School Choice Match Rule Unique Stability Recursive Manner Unique Match 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: a mechanism design approach. Am Econ Rev 93: 729–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak P, Roth A (2005a) The New York city high school match. Am Econ Rev 95: 364–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak P, Roth A, Sönmez T (2005b) The Boston public school match. Am Econ Rev 95(2): 368–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak P, Roth A, Sönmez T (2006) Changing the Boston school choice mechanism. NBER Working Paper No. 11965Google Scholar
  5. Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak P, Roth A (2009) Strategy-proofness versus efficiency in matching with indifferences: redesigning the NYC high school match. Am Econ Rev 99: 1954–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alcalde J, Barberà S (1994) Top dominance and the possibility of strategy-proof stable solutions to matching problems. Econ Theory 4: 417–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balinski M, Sönmez T (1999) A tale of two mechanisms: student placement. J Econ Theory 84: 73–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eeckhout J (2000) On the uniqueness of stable marriage matchings. Econ Lett 69: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gale D, Shapley LS (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am Math Monthly 69: 9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Knuth DE (1976) Marriages Stables. Les Presses de I’Universite de Montreal, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  11. Roth AE (1982) The economics of matching: stability and incentives. Math Oper Res 7: 617–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roth AE (1984) The evolution of the labor market for medical interns and residents: a case study in game theory. J Polit Econ 92: 991–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roth AE (1985) The college admissions problem is not equivalent to the marriage problem. J Econ Theory 36: 277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roth AE (2003) The origins, history, and design of the resident match. J Am Med Assoc 289: 909–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Roth AE, Peranson E (1997) The effects of the change in the NRMP matching algorithm. J Am Med Assoc 278: 729–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roth AE, Peranson E (1999) The redesign of the matching market for american physicians: some engineering aspects of economic design. Am Econ Rev 89: 748–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sasaki H, Toda M (1992) Consistency and characterization of the two-sided matching problems. J Econ Theory 56: 218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shapley L, Scarf H (1974) On cores and indivisibility. J Math Econ 1: 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sönmez T (1996) Strategy-proofness in many-to-one matching problems. Econ Des 1: 365–380Google Scholar
  20. Sönmez T (1999) Strategy-proofness and essentially single-valued core. Econometrica 67: 677–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tadenuma K, Toda M (1998) Implementable stable solutions to pure matching problems. Math Soc Sci 35: 121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Takagi S, Serizawa S (2010) An impossibility theorem for matching problems. Soc Choice Welf. doi: 10.1007/s00355-009-0439-8
  23. Toda M (2006) Monotonicity and consistency in matching markets. Int J Game Theory 34: 13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Political Science and EconomicsWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations