IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/boc/bocoec/1054.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How (not) to reform India's affirmative action policies for its economically weaker segments

Author

Listed:
  • Tayfun Sönmez

    (Boston College)

  • M. Utku Ünver

    (Boston College)

Abstract

Various groups in India are protected with a vertical reservation (VR) policy, which sets aside a fraction of government positions and public school seats for each pro- tected group. By law, VR-protected positions are processed after those open to all appli- cants, thus assuring that they are awarded to individuals who cannot receive open po- sitions with merit. Historically, VR protections were exclusive to groups who suffered marginalization and discrimination due to their hereditary caste identities. This structure means that no individual can belong to multiple VR-protected groups, which in turn im- plies that the processing sequence of VR-protected groups is immaterial. A Constitutional Amendment in 2019 granted economically weaker sections (EWS) with VR protections, but limited its eligibility to members of forward castes who are ineligible for caste-based VR protections. The amendment was immediately brought to court, and the exclusion of mem- bers of caste-based VR-protected groups was challenged due to its violation of individual Right to Equality. In September 2022, a compromise that is discussed at the Supreme Court involves maintaining the amendment, but expanding its scope to include the excluded groups. If this compromise is adopted in the country, individuals can belong to multiple VR-protected groups. We show that a major loophole in the system will emerge, if the Supreme Court merely expands the scope of EWS without specifying how its positions are to be processed in relation to earlier caste-based VR-protected positions. Depending on which normative objective the court wants to promote, we formulate and characterize three plausible specifications. If EWS is processed simultaneously with other VR-protected groups, then the outcome is one that selects the most meritorious individuals subject to the Supreme Court’s mandates. If EWS is processed before all other VR-protected groups, then the outcome is one that maintains the elevated status of caste-based VR protections. If EWS is processed after all other VR-protected groups, then the outcome is the smallest possible change from the contested amendment that escapes a violation of individual Right to Equality.

Suggested Citation

  • Tayfun Sönmez & M. Utku Ünver, 2022. "How (not) to reform India's affirmative action policies for its economically weaker segments," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1054, Boston College Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:boc:bocoec:1054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-P/wp1054.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shengwu Li, 2017. "Ethics and market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 705-720.
    2. Ehlers, Lars & Hafalir, Isa E. & Yenmez, M. Bumin & Yildirim, Muhammed A., 2014. "School choice with controlled choice constraints: Hard bounds versus soft bounds," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 648-683.
    3. Aytek Erdil & Haluk Ergin, 2008. "What's the Matter with Tie-Breaking? Improving Efficiency in School Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 669-689, June.
    4. Marek Pycia, 2012. "Stability and Preference Alignment in Matching and Coalition Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 323-362, January.
    5. Onur Kesten, 2010. "School Choice with Consent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(3), pages 1297-1348.
    6. Kojima, Fuhito, 2012. "School choice: Impossibilities for affirmative action," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 685-693.
    7. Joseph Root & David S. Ahn, 2020. "Incentives and Efficiency in Constrained Allocation Mechanisms," Papers 2006.06776, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    8. , Emin & , Bumin & , Ali, 2013. "Effective affirmative action in school choice," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), May.
    9. Yuichiro Kamada & Fuhito Kojima, 2015. "Efficient Matching under Distributional Constraints: Theory and Applications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 67-99, January.
    10. Federico Echenique & M. Bumin Yenmez, 2015. "How to Control Controlled School Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(8), pages 2679-2694, August.
    11. Fragiadakis, Daniel & Troyan, Peter, 2017. "Improving matching under hard distributional constraints," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    12. Yan Chen & Onur Kesten, 2017. "Chinese College Admissions and School Choice Reforms: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 99-139.
    13. Philip J. Reny, 2022. "Efficient Matching in the School Choice Problem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(6), pages 2025-2043, June.
    14. Hitzig, Zoë, 2020. "The normative gap: mechanism design and ideal theories of justice," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 407-434, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Orhan Aygn & Bertan Turhan, 2023. "Inconsistency of Score-Elevated Reserve Policy for Indian Affirmative Action," Papers 2312.14648, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.

    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. Tayfun Sonmez & Utku Unver, 2022. "Market Design for Social Justice: A Case Study on a Constitutional Crisis in India," Papers 2210.10166, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    2. 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.
    3. Zhenhua Jiao & Ziyang Shen & Guoqiang Tian, 2022. "When is the deferred acceptance mechanism responsive to priority-based affirmative action?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 257-282, February.
    4. Kawagoe, Toshiji & Matsubae, Taisuke & Takizawa, Hirokazu, 2018. "The Skipping-down strategy and stability in school choice problems with affirmative action: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 212-239.
    5. Tomoeda, Kentaro, 2018. "Finding a stable matching under type-specific minimum quotas," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 81-117.
    6. Aygün, Orhan & Turhan, Bertan, 2021. "How to De-reserve Reserves," ISU General Staff Papers 202103100800001123, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Parag A. Pathak & Alex Rees-Jones & Tayfun Sönmez, 2020. "Immigration Lottery Design: Engineered and Coincidental Consequences of H-1B Reforms," NBER Working Papers 26767, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Jiao, Zhenhua & Shen, Ziyang, 2021. "School choice with priority-based affirmative action: A responsive solution," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Itai Ashlagi & Amin Saberi & Ali Shameli, 2020. "Assignment Mechanisms Under Distributional Constraints," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 467-479, March.
    10. Avataneo, Michelle & Turhan, Bertan, 2021. "Slot-specific priorities with capacity transfers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 536-548.
    11. Tayfun Sönmez & M. Bumin Yenmez, 2022. "Affirmative Action in India via Vertical, Horizontal, and Overlapping Reservations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(3), pages 1143-1176, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Orhan Aygün & Bertan Turhan, 2023. "How to De-Reserve Reserves: Admissions to Technical Colleges in India," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(10), pages 6147-6164, October.
    14. Hafalir, Isa E. & Kojima, Fuhito & Yenmez, M. Bumin, 2022. "Interdistrict school choice: A theory of student assignment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    15. Tayfun Sönmez & M. Bumin Yenmez, 2019. "Can Economic Theory be Informative for the Judiciary? Affirmative Action in India via Vertical and Horizontal Reservations," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1026, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 23 Jun 2021.
    16. Kojima, Fuhito & Tamura, Akihisa & Yokoo, Makoto, 2018. "Designing matching mechanisms under constraints: An approach from discrete convex analysis," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 803-833.
    17. Aaron L. Bodoh-Creed, 2020. "Optimizing for Distributional Goals in School Choice Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3657-3676, August.
    18. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Tommy Andersson, 2022. "School Choice," NBER Working Papers 29822, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Duddy, Conal, 2017. "The structure of priority in the school choice problem," MPRA Paper 81057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Aygün, Orhan & Turhan, Bertan, 2021. "How to De-reserve Reserves," ISU General Staff Papers 202104130700001123, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Market design; matching; affirmative action; reserve system; EWS quota;
    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:boc:bocoec:1054. 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.