IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ireced/v35y2020ics1477388020300177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using classroom games to teach core concepts in market design, matching theory, and platform theory

Author

Listed:
  • Nungsari, Melati
  • Flanders, Sam

Abstract

Market design uses various economic tools, such as game theory and experimental analysis, to aid in the design, implementation, and the fixing of broken markets whenever needed. One application of market design is to study two-sided matching markets, such as marriage and labor markets. Market design and matching theory also relate to the study of platforms (i.e., profit-maximizing intermediaries who serve to connect two or more “sides” of people) such as Amazon, Netflix, and Airbnb. In this paper, we explore some of the core concepts in understanding market design, matching theory, and platforms, and we outline three classroom games with detailed instructions for instructors who may want to explore these topics in their own classes and curricula. The first game studies market thickness, market segmentation, and their use by platforms. The second game explores the ideas of preferences, differentiation, and search frictions to explore how positive assortative mating has had negative consequences for income inequality in the U.S. in recent history. The third game studies the function of algorithms in the design and operations of a platform and presents a game that teaches the Gale-Shapley algorithm, together with a supplementary handout for classroom activities, to further strengthen students’ understanding of this seminal algorithm. The games are flexible and can be implemented for a variety of levels of study, including an undergraduate introductory economics class, an upper-level undergraduate elective, or an MBA economics course covering topics relating to platform design and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Nungsari, Melati & Flanders, Sam, 2020. "Using classroom games to teach core concepts in market design, matching theory, and platform theory," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ireced:v:35:y:2020:i:c:s1477388020300177
    DOI: 10.1016/j.iree.2020.100190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477388020300177
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.iree.2020.100190?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. 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.
    2. Stefano Carattini & Eli P. Fenichel & Alexander Gordan & Patrick Gourley, 2020. "For want of a chair: Teaching price formation using a cap and trade game," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 52-66, January.
    3. Gould, Eric D. & Paserman, M. Daniele, 2003. "Waiting for Mr. Right: rising inequality and declining marriage rates," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 257-281, March.
    4. Frank, Bjorn, 1997. "The Impact of Classroom Experiments on the Learning of Economics: An Empirical Investigation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(4), pages 763-769, October.
    5. Jill L. Caviglia-Harris & Richard T. Melstrom, 2015. "Airing Your Dirty Laundry: A Quick Marketable Pollution Permits Game for the Classroom," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(4), pages 412-419, October.
    6. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Georgi Kocharkov & Cezar Santos, 2014. "Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 348-353, May.
    7. Jeremy Bulow & Jonathan Levin, 2006. "Matching and Price Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 652-668, June.
    8. E. Glen Weyl, 2010. "A Price Theory of Multi-sided Platforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1642-1672, September.
    9. Charles A. Holt, 1999. "Teaching Economics with Classroom Experiments: A Symposium," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(3), pages 603-610, January.
    10. Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick, 2019. "50 years of economic instruction in the Journal of Economic Education," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 168-195, April.
    11. Mark Dickie, 2006. "Do Classroom Experiments Increase Learning in Introductory Microeconomics?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 267-288, July.
    12. Mark Armstrong, 2006. "Competition in two‐sided markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 668-691, September.
    13. Michael Watts & William E. Becker, 2008. "A Little More than Chalk and Talk: Results from a Third National Survey of Teaching Methods in Undergraduate Economics Courses," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 273-286, July.
    14. Ron Berman & Zsolt Katona, 2016. "The Impact of Curation Algorithms on Social Network Content Quality and Structure," Working Papers 16-08, NET Institute.
    15. William E. Becker & Michael Watts, 2001. "Teaching Economics at the Start of the 21st Century: Still Chalk-and-Talk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 446-451, May.
    16. Gunter J. Hitsch & Ali Hortaçsu & Dan Ariely, 2010. "Matching and Sorting in Online Dating," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 130-163, March.
    17. Yvonne Durham & Thomas Mckinnon & Craig Schulman, 2007. "Classroom Experiments: Not Just Fun And Games," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 162-178, January.
    18. Emilio Calvano & Giacomo Calzolari & Vincenzo Denicolò & Sergio Pastorello, 2019. "Algorithmic Pricing What Implications for Competition Policy?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(1), pages 155-171, August.
    19. Hanna Halaburda & Mikołaj Jan Piskorski & Pınar Yıldırım, 2018. "Competing by Restricting Choice: The Case of Matching Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3574-3594, August.
    20. Becker, William E & Watts, Michael, 1996. "Chalk and Talk: A National Survey on Teaching Undergraduate Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(2), pages 448-453, May.
    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. Lina Ma & Wanying Zhao & Longzhu Dong & Yushen Du, 2023. "Platforms Competition: An Ecosystem-View Analysis Based on Evolutionary Game Theory," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.

    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. Gerald Eisenkopf & Pascal A. Sulser, 2016. "Randomized controlled trial of teaching methods: Do classroom experiments improve economic education in high schools?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 211-225, July.
    2. Ninos P. Malek & Joshua C. Hall & Collin Hodges, 2014. "A Review and Analysis of the Effectiveness of Alternative Teaching Methods on Student Learning in Economics," Working Papers 14-27, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    3. Mateu, Guillermo, 2021. "Innovative education management: an empirical study," TEC Empresarial, School of Business, Costa Rica Institute of Technology (ITCR), vol. 15(3), pages 2-17.
    4. Christina Robinson, 2015. "Classroom Experimentation and an Application from Sports Economics," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 21(4), pages 423-432, November.
    5. Zheng, Liping & Severe, Sean, 2016. "Teaching the macroeconomic effects of tax cuts with a quasi-experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 55-65.
    6. Gerald Eisenkopf & Pascal Sulser, 2013. "A Randomized Controlled Trial of Teaching Methods: Do Classroom Experiments improve Economic Education in High Schools?," TWI Research Paper Series 80, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    7. Cynthia Harter & Georg Schaur & Michael Watts, 2015. "School, department, and instructor determinants of teaching methods in undergraduate economics courses," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(4), pages 1169-1188, April.
    8. Tisha Emerson & Denise Hazlett, 2011. "Classroom Experiments," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Amanda Mandzik, 2023. "All I Want for Christmas is an A on My Econ Final: A Holiday-Themed Review Class," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 8(2), pages 72-86, May.
    10. Jullien, Bruno & Pavan, Alessandro & Rysman, Marc, 2021. "Two-sided Markets, Pricing, and Network Effects," TSE Working Papers 21-1238, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    11. Klein, Alina F. & Klein, Rudolf F., 2023. "Principles of Economics, the Survivor Edition," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 5(2), March.
    12. Hart Hodges & Yvonne Durham & Steve Henson, 2018. "Economic Education Production Functions for the Principles of Macroeconomics and the Principles of Microeconomics: Is There a Difference?," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 18(2), pages 22-41, Fall.
    13. McMahon, Michael, 2011. "Classroom Games in Economics: A Quantitative Assessment of the ‘Beer Game’," Economic Research Papers 270760, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    14. Marcus Giamattei & Humberto Llavador, 2017. "Teaching microeconomic principles with smartphones – lessons from classroom experiments with classEx," Working Papers 996, Barcelona School of Economics.
    15. Farolfi, Stefano & Erdlenbruch, Katrin, 2020. "A classroom experimental game to improve the understanding of asymmetric common-pool resource dilemmas in irrigation water management," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    16. Dickinson, David L., 2009. "Experiment timing and preferences for fairness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 89-95, January.
    17. Franklin G. Mixon & Richard J. Cebula (ed.), 2014. "New Developments in Economic Education," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15538.
    18. KimMarie McGoldrick, 2010. "Advancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Economics," Chapters, in: Michael K. Salemi & William B. Walstad (ed.), Teaching Innovations in Economics, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. A. Arrighetti & A. Lasagni, 2018. "Insegnare Economia Industriale ‘in a digital age’," Economics Department Working Papers 2018-EP06, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    20. Joshua D. Miller & Robert P. Rebelein, 2011. "Research on the Effectiveness of Non-Traditional Pedagogies," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 30, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Games; Market design; Classroom games; Matching; Inequality; Platforms; Economics education;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A22 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Undergraduate
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:ireced:v:35:y:2020:i:c:s1477388020300177. 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.journals.elsevier.com/international-review-of-economics-education .

    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.