The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Matching and Market Design

  • Muriel Niederle
  • Alvin E. Roth
  • Tayfun Sönmez
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2313

Abstract

Matching is the part of economics concerned with who transacts with whom, and how. Models of matching, starting with the Gale–Shapley deferred acceptance algorithm, have been particularly useful in studying labour markets and in helping design clearing houses to fix market failures. Studying how markets fail also gives us insight into how marketplaces work well. They need to provide a thick, uncongested market in which it is safe to participate. Clearing houses that do this have been designed for many entry-level professional labour markets, for the assignment of children to public schools, and for exchange of live-donor kidneys for transplantation.

Keywords

Centralized matching Clearing houses Congestion Kidney exchange Labour markets Market design Marriage markets Matching Medical labour markets National resident matching program School choice One-sided and two-sided markets Priority algorithms Revelation of preferences Strategy-proof allocation mechanisms Two-sided markets 

JEL Classifications

C78 L1 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Abdulkadiroglu, A., and T. Sönmez. 1998. Random serial dictatorship and the core from random endowments in house allocation problems. Econometrica 66: 689–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdulkadiroglu, A., and T. Sönmez. 1999. House allocation with existing tenants. Journal of Economic Theory 88: 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abdulkadiroglu, A., and T. Sönmez. 2003. School choice: A mechanism design approach. American Economic Review 93: 729–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abdulkadiroglu, A., P.A. Pathak, and A.E. Roth. 2005a. The New York City high school match. American Economic Review 95: 364–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abdulkadiroglu, A., P.A. Pathak, A.E. Roth, and T. Sönmez. 2005b. The Boston public school match. American Economic Review 95: 368–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Abdulkadiroglu, A., P.A. Pathak, and A.E. Roth. 2006a. Strategy-proofness versus efficiency in matching with indifferences: Redesigning the NYC high school match (Working paper). Harvard University.Google Scholar
  7. Abdulkadiroglu, A., P.A. Pathak, A.E. Roth, and T. Sönmez. 2006b. Changing the Boston school choice mechanism (Working Paper No. 11965). Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  8. Avery, C., C. Jolls, R.A. Posner, and A.E. Roth. 2001. The market for federal judicial law clerks. University of Chicago Law Review 68: 793–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Avery, C., A. Fairbanks, and R. Zeckhauser. 2003. The early admissions game: Joining the elite. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Avery, C., C. Jolls, R.A. Posner, and A.E. Roth. 2007. The new market for federal judicial law clerks. University of Chicago Law Review 74: 447–486.Google Scholar
  11. Bulow, J., and J. Levin. 2006. Matching and price competition. American Economic Review 96: 652–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gale, D., and L.S. Shapley. 1962. College admissions and the stability of marriage. American Mathematical Monthly 69: 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hatfield, J., and P. Milgrom. 2005. Matching with contracts. American Economic Review 95: 913–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hylland, A., and R. Zeckhauser. 1979. The efficient allocation of individuals to positions. Journal of Political Economy 87: 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kagel, J.H., and A.E. Roth. 2000. The dynamics of reorganization in matching markets: A laboratory experiment motivated by a natural experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115: 201–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kelso, A.S., and V.P. Crawford. 1982. Job matching, coalition formation, and gross substitutes. Econometrica 50: 1483–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kojima, F. 2007. Matching and price competition. American Economic Review 97: 1027–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li, H., and S. Rosen. 1998. Unraveling in matching markets. American Economic Review 88: 371–387.Google Scholar
  19. Ma, J. 1994. Strategy-proofness and the strict core in a market with indivisibilities. International Journal of Game Theory 23: 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKinney, C.N., M. Niederle, and A.E. Roth. 2005. The collapse of a medical labor clearinghouse (and why such failures are rare). American Economic Review 95: 878–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milgrom, P. 2004. Putting auction theory to work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niederle, M. 2007. Competitive wages in a match with ordered contracts. American Economic Review.Google Scholar
  23. Niederle, M., and A.E. Roth. 2003a. Relationship between wages and presence of a match in medical fellowships. Journal of the American Medical Association 290: 1153–1154.Google Scholar
  24. Niederle, M., and A.E. Roth. 2003b. Unraveling reduces mobility in a labor market: Gastroenterology with and without a centralized match. Journal of Political Economy 111: 1342–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niederle, M., and A.E. Roth. 2007. Making markets thick: How norms governing exploding offers affect market performance (Working paper).Google Scholar
  26. Niederle, M., and A.E. Roth. 2008. The effects of a central clearinghouse on job placement, wages, and hiring practices. In Labor market intermediation, ed. D. Autor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Niederle, M., and L. Yariv. 2007. Matching through decentralized markets (Working paper).Google Scholar
  28. Niederle, M., D.D. Proctor, and A.E. Roth. 2006. What will be needed for the new GI fellowship match to succeed? Gastroenterology 130: 218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roth, A.E. 1982. Incentive compatibility in a market with indivisible goods. Economics Letters 9: 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roth, A.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
  31. Roth, A.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
  32. Roth, A.E. 2002. The economist as engineer: Game theory, experimental economics and computation as tools of design economics. Econometrica 70: 1341–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roth, A.E., and E. Peranson. 1999. The redesign of the matching market for American physicians: Some engineering aspects of economic design. American Economic Review 89: 748–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roth, A.E., and A. Postlewaite. 1977. Weak versus strong domination in a market with indivisible goods. Journal of Mathematical Economics 4: 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roth, A.E., and M. Sotomayor. 1990. Two-sided matching: A study in game – Theoretic modeling and analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Roth, A.E., T. Sönmez, and M.U. Ünver. 2004. Kidney exchange. Quarterly Journal of Economics 119: 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roth, A.E., T. Sönmez, and M.U. Ünver. 2005a. A kidney exchange clearinghouse in New England. American Economic Review 95: 376–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roth, A.E., T. Sönmez, and M.U. Ünver. 2005b. Pairwise kidney exchange. Journal of Economic Theory 125: 151–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth, A.E., T. Sönmez, M.U. Ünver, F.L. Delmonico, and S.L. Saidman. 2006. Utilizing list exchange and undirected Good Samaritan donation through ‘chain’ paired kidney donations. American Journal of Transplantation 6: 2694–2705.Google Scholar
  42. Roth, A.E., T. Sönmez, and M.U. Ünver. 2007. Efficient kidney exchange: Coincidence of wants in markets with compatibility-based preferences. American Economic Review 97: 828–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shapley, L., and H. Scarf. 1974. On cores and indivisibility. Journal of Mathematical Economics 1: 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shapley, L., and M. Shubik. 1971. The assignment game I: The core. International Journal of Game Theory 1: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muriel Niederle
    • 1
  • Alvin E. Roth
    • 1
  • Tayfun Sönmez
    • 1
  1. 1.