IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/boc/bocoec/721.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Profit-Maximizing Matchmaker

Author

Listed:
  • Hideo Konishi

    (Boston College)

  • Chiu Yu Ko

    (Boston College)

Abstract

This paper considers a resource allocation mechanism that utilizes a profit-maximizing auctioneer/matchmaker in the Kelso-Crawford (1982) (many-to-one) assignment problem. We consider general and simple (individualized price) message spaces for firms' reports following Milgrom (2010). We show that in the simple message space, (i) the matchmaker's profit is always zero and an acceptable assignment is achieved in every Nash equilibrium, and (ii) the sets of stable assignments and strong Nash equilibria are equivalent. By contrast, in the general message space, the matchmaker may make a positive profit even in a strong Nash equilibrium. This shows that restricting message space not only reduces the information requirement but also improves resource allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hideo Konishi & Chiu Yu Ko, 2009. "Profit-Maximizing Matchmaker," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 721, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 23 Apr 2012.
    • Handle: RePEc:boc:bocoec:721
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-P/wp721.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milgrom,Paul, 2004. "Putting Auction Theory to Work," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521536721, September.
    2. Shin, Sungwhee & Suh, Sang-Chul, 1996. "A mechanism implementing the stable rule in marriage problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 185-189, May.
    3. Roth,Alvin E. & Sotomayor,Marilda A. Oliveira, 1992. "Two-Sided Matching," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521437882, October.
    4. Sonmez, Tayfun, 1997. "Games of Manipulation in Marriage Problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 169-176, August.
    5. Laussel, Didier & Le Breton, Michel, 2001. "Conflict and Cooperation: The Structure of Equilibrium Payoffs in Common Agency," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 93-128, September.
    6. B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Menu Auctions, Resource Allocation, and Economic Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(1), pages 1-31.
    7. Takashi Hayashi & Toyotaka Sakai, 2009. "Nash implementation of competitive equilibria in the job-matching market," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 453-467, November.
    8. Konishi, Hideo & Le Breton, Michel & Weber, Shlomo, 1999. "On Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria in Common Agency Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 122-139, March.
    9. Alcalde, Jose & Perez-Castrillo, David & Romero-Medina, Antonio, 1998. "Hiring Procedures to Implement Stable Allocations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 469-480, October.
    10. Roth, Alvin E., 1985. "The college admissions problem is not equivalent to the marriage problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 277-288, August.
    11. Bernheim, B. Douglas & Peleg, Bezalel & Whinston, Michael D., 1987. "Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-12, June.
    12. Kelso, Alexander S, Jr & Crawford, Vincent P, 1982. "Job Matching, Coalition Formation, and Gross Substitutes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1483-1504, November.
    13. Milgrom, Paul, 2010. "Simplified mechanisms with an application to sponsored-search auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 62-70, September.
    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 & Parag A. Pathak, 2009. "Incentives and Stability in Large Two-Sided Matching Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 608-627, June.
    2. Alcalde, Jose & Revilla, Pablo, 1999. "The role of unions in hiring procedures for job markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 189-195, February.
    3. Arribas, I. & Urbano, A., 2017. "Multiproduct trading with a common agent under complete information: Existence and characterization of Nash equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 14-38.
    4. Alvin Roth, 2008. "Deferred acceptance algorithms: history, theory, practice, and open questions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 36(3), pages 537-569, March.
    5. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Paul Milgrom, 2004. "Ascending Proxy Auctions," Discussion Papers 03-035, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    6. Konishi, Hideo & Unver, M. Utku, 2006. "Credible group stability in many-to-many matching problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 57-80, July.
    7. Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Market Design?," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 79-112.
    8. John William Hatfield & Paul R. Milgrom, 2005. "Matching with Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 913-935, September.
    9. Ergin, Haluk & Sonmez, Tayfun, 2006. "Games of school choice under the Boston mechanism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-2), pages 215-237, January.
    10. David Pérez-Castrillo & Marilda Sotomayor, 2017. "The outcome of competitive equilibrium rules in buyer–seller markets when the agents play strategically," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 64(1), pages 99-119, June.
    11. John W. Hatfield & Paul Milgrom, 2005. "Auctions, Matching and the Law of Aggregate Demand," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000780, UCLA Department of Economics.
    12. Chiesa, Gabriella & Denicolò, Vincenzo, 2009. "Trading with a common agent under complete information: A characterization of Nash equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 296-311, January.
    13. Muriel Niederle & Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "The Effects of a Centralized Clearinghouse on Job Placement, Wages, and Hiring Practices," NBER Chapters, in: Studies of Labor Market Intermediation, pages 235-271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    15. Furusawa, Taiji & ,, 2011. "Contributing or free-riding? Voluntary participation in a public good economy," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(2), May.
    16. A Bhattacharya & H Newhouse, 2010. "Allocative Efficiency and an Incentive Scheme for Research," Discussion Papers 10/02, Department of Economics, University of York.
    17. A. Talman & Zaifu Yang, 2015. "An efficient multi-item dynamic auction with budget constrained bidders," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(3), pages 769-784, August.
    18. Billette de Villemeur, Etienne & Versaevel, Bruno, 2019. "One lab, two firms, many possibilities: On R&D outsourcing in the biopharmaceutical industry," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 260-283.
    19. Alcalde, Jose & Romero-Medina, Antonio, 2005. "Sequential decisions in the college admissions problem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 153-158, February.
    20. Didier Laussel & Joana Resende, 2020. "Complementary Monopolies with asymmetric information," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(4), pages 943-981, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    two-sided matching problem; stable assignment; strong Nash equilibrium; coalition-proof Nash equilibrium; no-rent property; implementation theory;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:boc:bocoec:721. 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: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/debocus.html .

    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.