Advertisement

Game Theory as a Tool for Market Design

  • Alvin E. Roth
Part of the Theory and Decision Library book series (TDLC, volume 23)

Abstract

Markets evolve, but they are also designed. Entrepreneurs and managers, legislators and regulators, lawyers and judges, all get involved, at least indirectly, in market design. Recently game theorists have also started to take a direct role in design. This is a natural development, because game theory is the part of economics that deals with the “rules of the game” that define market operations.

Keywords

Game Theory Stable Matchings Spot Market Preference List Medical Market 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bodin, Lawrence and (Rabbi) Aaron Panken (1999), High Tech for a Higher Authority: The Placement of Graduating Rabbis From Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, mimeo.Google Scholar
  2. Chao, Hung-po and Robert Wilson (1999), Design of Wholesale Electricity Markets, in preparation.Google Scholar
  3. Cramton, Peter (1997), The FCC Auctions: An Early Assessment, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 6(3), 431–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gale, David and Lloyd Shapley (1962), College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage, American Mathematical Monthly, 69, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kagel, John H. and A.E. Roth (1999), The dynamics of reorganization in matching markets: A laboratory experiment motivated by a natural experiment, forthcoming in Quarterly Journal of Economics.Google Scholar
  6. McAfee, R. Preston, and John McMillan (1996), Analyzing the Airwaves Auction, Journal of Economic Perspectives 10, 159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McMillan, John (1995), Why Auction the Spectrum? Telecommunications Policy 19, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McMillan, John (1994), Selling Spectrum Rights, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Milgrom, Paul (1998), Game Theory and the Spectrum Auctions, European Economic Review 42, 771–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Milgrom, Paul Auction Theory for Privatization, in preparation.Google Scholar
  11. Mongell, Susan J. and Alvin E. Roth (1991), Sorority Rush as a Two-Sided Matching Mechanism, American Economic Review, 81, 441–464.Google Scholar
  12. Roth, Alvin E. (1984), The Evolution of the Labor Market for Medical Interns and Residents: A Case Study in Game Theory, Journal of Political Economy, 92, 991–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roth, Alvin E. (1990), New Physicians: A Natural Experiment in Market Organization, Science, 250, 1524–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roth, Alvin E. (1991), A Natural Experiment in the Organization of Entry Level Labor Markets: Regional Markets for New Physicians and Surgeons in the U.K., American Economic Review, 81, 415–440.Google Scholar
  15. Roth, Alvin E. (1996), Interim Report #1: Evaluation of the current NRMP algorithm, and preliminary design of an applicant-processing algorithm, consultant’s report, and http://www.economics.harvard.edu/aroth/interiml.html
  16. Roth, Alvin E. and Elliott Peranson (1997), The effects of the change in the NRMP matching algorithm, Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 729–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roth, A.E. and E. Peranson, The Redesign of the Matching Market for American Physicians: Some Engineering Aspects of Economic Design, American Economic Review, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  18. Roth, Alvin E. and Marilda Sotomayor (1990) Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis, Econometric Society Monograph Series, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Roth, Alvin E. and John H. Vande Vate (1990), Random Paths to Stability in Two-Sided Matching, Econometrica, 58, 1475–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roth, A.E. and X. Xing (1994), Jumping the Gun: Imperfections and Institutions Related to the Timing of Market Transactions, American Economic Review, 84, 992–1044.Google Scholar
  21. Roth, A.E. and X. Xing (1997), Turnaround Time and Bottlenecks in Market Clearing: Decentralized Matching in the Market for Clinical Psychologists, Journal of Political Economy, 105, 284–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilson, Robert (1998), “Design Principles”, chapter 11 in H. Chao and H. Huntington (eds.), Design of Restructured Power Markets, Norwell MA: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, Robert (1999), “Activity Rules for an Iterative Double Auction”, chapter 10 in K. Chatterjee and W. Samuelson (eds.), Business Applications of Game Theory. Norwell MA: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alvin E. Roth
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics and Graduate School of Business AdministrationHarvard UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations