IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/wly/iecrev/v59y2018i4p2219-2258.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

The Equitable Top Trading Cycles Mechanism For School Choice

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as


Cited by:

  1. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Yeon-Koo Che & Parag A. Pathak & Alvin E. Roth & Olivier Tercieux, 2017. "Minimizing Justified Envy in School Choice: The Design of New Orleans' OneApp," NBER Working Papers 23265, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Pablo Guillen & Rustamdjan Hakimov, 2017. "Not quite the best response: truth-telling, strategy-proof matching, and the manipulation of others," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 670-686, September.
  3. Pycia, Marek & Unver, Utku, 2017. "Incentive compatible allocation and exchange of discrete resources," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
  4. Ata Atay & Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2022. "Limited Farsightedness in Priority-Based Matching," Papers 2212.07427, arXiv.org.
  5. Battal Doğan & Lars Ehlers, 2022. "Robust Minimal Instability of the Top Trading Cycles Mechanism," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 556-582, November.
  6. Nadja Stroh-Maraun, 2020. "Pareto Efficiency in Weighted School Choice Problems," Working Papers Dissertations 64, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
  7. Afacan, Mustafa Oğuz & Hu, Gaoji & Li, Jiangtao, 2024. "Housing markets since Shapley and Scarf," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
  8. Rodríguez-Álvarez, Carmelo & Romero-Medina, Antonio, 2024. "School choice with transferable student characteristics," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 103-124.
  9. Martin Bichler & Alexander Hammerl & Thayer Morrill & Stefan Waldherr, 2021. "How to Assign Scarce Resources Without Money: Designing Information Systems that are Efficient, Truthful, and (Pretty) Fair," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 335-355, June.
  10. Rong, Kang & Tang, Qianfeng & Zhang, Yongchao, 2020. "On stable and efficient mechanisms for priority-based allocation problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
  11. Estelle Cantillon & Li Chen & Juan S. Pereyra, 2022. "Respecting priorities versus respecting preferences in school choice: When is there a trade-off?," Papers 2212.02881, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.
  12. Guillen, Pablo & Hakimov, Rustamdjan, 2018. "The effectiveness of top-down advice in strategy-proof mechanisms: A field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 505-511.
  13. Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2021. "Experiments on centralized school choice and college admissions: a survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(2), pages 434-488.
  14. Eric Budish & Judd B. Kessler, 2022. "Can Market Participants Report Their Preferences Accurately (Enough)?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1107-1130, February.
  15. Benoit Decerf & Guillaume Haeringer & Martin Van der Linden, 2024. "Incontestable Assignments," Papers 2401.03598, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
  16. Estelle Cantillon & Li Chen & Juan Sebastian Pereyra Barreiro, 2022. "Respecting priorities versus respecting preferences in school choice: When is there a trade-off ?," Working Papers ECARES 2022-39, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  17. Duddy, Conal, 2015. "Revising the school choice problem," MPRA Paper 63316, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  18. Marek Pycia & Peter Troyan, 2023. "A Theory of Simplicity in Games and Mechanism Design," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(4), pages 1495-1526, July.
  19. Jiao, Zhenhua & Shen, Ziyang, 2020. "On responsiveness of top trading cycles mechanism to priority-based affirmative action," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
  20. Morrill, Thayer & Roth, Alvin E., 2024. "Top trading cycles," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
  21. Pycia, Marek & Ãœnver, M. Utku, 2020. "Arrovian Efficiency and Auditability in the Allocation of Discrete Resources," CEPR Discussion Papers 15377, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  22. Aram Grigoryan, 2023. "Top trading cycles with reordering: improving match priority in school choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60(3), pages 383-396, April.
  23. Guillen, Pablo & Hakimov, Rustamdjan, 2014. "Monkey see, monkey do: Truth-telling in matching algorithms and the manipulation of others," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2014-202, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
  24. Jingsheng Yu & Jun Zhang, 2020. "Efficient and fair trading algorithms in market design environments," Papers 2005.06878, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
  25. Guillén, Pablo & Hakimov, Rustamdjan, 2015. "How to get truthful reporting in matching markets: A field experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2015-208, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
  26. Guillen, Pablo & Hakimov, Rustamdjan, 2015. "Less is more: A Field Experiment on Matching," Working Papers 2015-16, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
  27. repec:syd:wpaper:2123/9951 is not listed on IDEAS
  28. Marek Pycia & M. Utku Ünver, 2016. "Arrovian Efficiency in Allocation of Discrete Resources," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 916, Boston College Department of Economics.
  29. Andrew McLennan & Shino Takayama & Yuki Tamura, 2024. "An Efficient, Computationally Tractable School Choice Mechanism," Discussion Papers Series 668, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
  30. Stroh-Maraun, Nadja, 2024. "Weighted school choice problems and the weighted top trading cycles mechanism," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 49-56.
  31. 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.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.