IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v143y2024icp287-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reallocation with priorities

Author

Listed:
  • Combe, Julien
  • Schlegel, Jan Christoph

Abstract

We consider a reallocation problem with priorities where each agent is initially endowed with a house and is willing to exchange it but each house has a priority ordering over the agents of the market. In this setting, it is well known that there is no individually rational and stable mechanism. As a result, the literature has introduced a modified stability notion called μ0-stability. In contrast to college admission problems, in which priorities are present but there is no initial endowment, we show that the ownership-adjusted Deferred Acceptance mechanism identified in the literature is not the only individually rational, strategy-proof and μ0-stable mechanism. By introducing a new axiom called the independence of irrelevant agents and using the standard axiom of unanimity, we show that the ownership-adjusted Deferred Acceptance mechanism is the unique mechanism that is individually rational, strategy-proof, μ0-stable, unanimous and independent of irrelevant agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Combe, Julien & Schlegel, Jan Christoph, 2024. "Reallocation with priorities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 287-299.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:143:y:2024:i:c:p:287-299
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2023.11.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825623001872
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2023.11.015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ehlers, Lars & Klaus, Bettina, 2016. "Object allocation via deferred-acceptance: Strategy-proofness and comparative statics," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 128-146.
    2. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Parag A. Pathak & Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "Strategy-proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the New York City High School Match," NBER Working Papers 14864, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Eric Maskin, 1999. "Nash Equilibrium and Welfare Optimality," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 23-38.
    4. Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "House allocation with existing tenants: an equivalence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 153-185, July.
    5. Alcalde, Jose & Barbera, Salvador, 1994. "Top Dominance and the Possibility of Strategy-Proof Stable Solutions to Matching Problems," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 4(3), pages 417-435, May.
    6. Pereyra, Juan Sebastián, 2013. "A dynamic school choice model," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 100-114.
    7. Abdulkadiroglu, Atila & Sonmez, Tayfun, 1999. "House Allocation with Existing Tenants," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 233-260, October.
    8. Kojima, Fuhito & Manea, Mihai, 2010. "Incentives in the probabilistic serial mechanism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 106-123, January.
    9. Pablo Guillen & Onur Kesten, 2012. "Matching Markets With Mixed Ownership: The Case For A Real‐Life Assignment Mechanism," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(3), pages 1027-1046, August.
    10. Pycia, Marek & Unver, Utku, 2017. "Incentive compatible allocation and exchange of discrete resources," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    11. Ma Jinpeng, 1995. "Stable Matchings and Rematching-Proof Equilibria in a Two-Sided Matching Market," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 352-369, August.
    12. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Parag A. Pathak & Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "Strategy-Proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1954-1978, December.
    13. Umut Mert Dur & M. Utku Ünver, 2019. "Two-Sided Matching via Balanced Exchange," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(3), pages 1156-1177.
    14. Lars-Gunnar Svensson, 1999. "Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 557-567.
    15. Muller, Eitan & Satterthwaite, Mark A., 1977. "The equivalence of strong positive association and strategy-proofness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 412-418, April.
    16. Shapley, Lloyd & Scarf, Herbert, 1974. "On cores and indivisibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 23-37, March.
    17. Thayer Morrill, 2013. "An alternative characterization of the deferred acceptance algorithm," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(1), pages 19-28, February.
    18. Akbarpour, Mohammad & Kapor, Adam & Neilson, Christopher & van Dijk, Winnie & Zimmerman, Seth, 2022. "Centralized School choice with unequal outside options," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    19. Haluk I. Ergin, 2002. "Efficient Resource Allocation on the Basis of Priorities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2489-2497, November.
    20. Onur Kesten, 2010. "School Choice with Consent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(3), pages 1297-1348.
    21. Ma, Jinpeng, 1994. "Strategy-Proofness and the Strict Core in a Market with Indivisibilities," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 23(1), pages 75-83.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fuhito Kojima & M. Ünver, 2014. "The “Boston” school-choice mechanism: an axiomatic approach," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(3), pages 515-544, April.
    2. Raghavan, Madhav, 2020. "Swap-flexibility in the assignment of houses," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 1-10.
    3. Ehlers, Lars, 2014. "Top trading with fixed tie-breaking in markets with indivisible goods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 64-87.
    4. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Tommy Andersson, 2022. "School Choice," NBER Working Papers 29822, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Julien Combe, 2023. "Reallocation with priorities and minimal envy mechanisms," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(2), pages 551-584, August.
    6. Kesten, Onur & Kurino, Morimitsu, 2019. "Strategy-proof improvements upon deferred acceptance: A maximal domain for possibility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 120-143.
    7. Raghavan, Madhav, 2020. "Influence in private-goods allocation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 14-28.
    8. Karakaya, Mehmet & Klaus, Bettina & Schlegel, Jan Christoph, 2019. "Top trading cycles, consistency, and acyclic priorities for house allocation with existing tenants," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    9. Han, Xiang, 2018. "Stable and efficient resource allocation under weak priorities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-20.
    10. Julien Combe & Jan Christoph Schlegel, 2021. "Reallocation with Priorities," Working Papers 2021-09, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    11. Morrill, Thayer, 2015. "Making just school assignments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 18-27.
    12. Anno, Hidekazu & Kurino, Morimitsu, 2016. "On the operation of multiple matching markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 166-185.
    13. Yuji Fujinaka & Takuma Wakayama, 2011. "Secure implementation in Shapley–Scarf housing markets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(1), pages 147-169, September.
    14. Umut Dur & Onur Kesten, 2019. "Sequential versus simultaneous assignment systems and two applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(2), pages 251-283, September.
    15. Mustafa Oğuz Afacan & Umut Mert Dur, 2020. "Constrained stability in two-sided matching markets," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(3), pages 477-494, October.
    16. José Alcalde Pérez & Antonio Romero-Medina, 2011. "Fair School Placement," Working Papers. Serie AD 2011-22, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    17. Marek Pycia & M. Utku Ünver, 2022. "Outside options in neutral allocation of discrete resources," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 581-604, December.
    18. Bettina Klaus & David F. Manlove & Francesca Rossi, 2014. "Matching under Preferences," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 14.07, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    19. Battal Dogan & Lars Ehlers, 2020. "Blocking pairs versus blocking students: Stability comparisons in school choice," Cahiers de recherche 2020-02, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    20. José Alcalde & Antonio Romero-Medina, 2017. "Fair student placement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(2), pages 293-307, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Matching; Housing market; Reallocation; Stability; Priorities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:143:y:2024:i:c:p:287-299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.