IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nea/journl/y2025i69p12-35.html

On the manipulability of the constrained Gale-Shapley and Boston school choice mechanisms. Part 2. Comparing harm of manipulations

Author

Listed:
  • Auster, I.

    (Department of Mathematics, HSE University, Moscow, Russia)

Abstract

This work presents a simulation-based comparative analysis on the harm of manipulations in two widely used school choice mechanisms - the constrained Boston and Gale-Shapley - through the perspective of the share (percentage) of students getting into schools and the average welfare of students. Thus, this part of the research extends the manipulability analysis presented in the first part but analyzes not the vulnerability of mechanisms to manipulations but the harm of manipulations per se. We also investigate the connections between the parameters of the problems (percentage of sophisticated students and the mechanism constraint, i.e. the maximum number of schools that students are allowed to list in their preferences) and the outcomes of the mechanisms. Finally, we analyze and compare two different mechanism designs: the one where students submit their preferences by the same point in time and the one where students are allowed to change their preferences through a certain common period of time. In this part of the research we show two main advantages of the Gale-Shapley mechanism compared to the Boston mechanism: the higher percentage of students getting into schools and, under the realistic assumption of correlated preferences of students, higher average welfare of sincere students, with the average welfare of all students being statistically equal under two mechanisms in the most of analyzed scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Auster, I., 2025. "On the manipulability of the constrained Gale-Shapley and Boston school choice mechanisms. Part 2. Comparing harm of manipulations," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 12-35.
    • Handle: RePEc:nea:journl:y:2025:i:69:p:12-35
    DOI: 10.31737/22212264_2025_4_12-35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econorus.org/repec/journl/2025-69-12-35r.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31737/22212264_2025_4_12-35?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Yeon-Koo Che & Yosuke Yasuda, 2011. "Resolving Conflicting Preferences in School Choice: The "Boston Mechanism" Reconsidered," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 399-410, February.
    2. Rustamdjan Hakimov & Onur Kesten, 2018. "The Equitable Top Trading Cycles Mechanism For School Choice," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(4), pages 2219-2258, November.
    3. Bonkoungou, Somouaoga & Nesterov, Alexander, 2021. "Comparing school choice and college admissions mechanisms by their strategic accessibility," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    4. Bó, Inácio & Hakimov, Rustamdjan, 2022. "The iterative deferred acceptance mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 411-433.
    5. Dur, Umut & Hammond, Robert G. & Kesten, Onur, 2021. "Sequential school choice: Theory and evidence from the field and lab," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Umut Dur & Robert G. Hammond & Thayer Morrill, 2018. "Identifying the Harm of Manipulable School-Choice Mechanisms," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 187-213, February.
    7. Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun Sönmez, 2013. "School Admissions Reform in Chicago and England: Comparing Mechanisms by Their Vulnerability to Manipulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 80-106, February.
    8. Bonkoungou, Somouaoga & Nesterov, Alexander, 2023. "Incentives in matching markets: counting and comparing manipulating agents," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(3), July.
    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. Parag A. Pathak & Tayfun Sonmez, 2008. "Leveling the Playing Field: Sincere and Sophisticated Players in the Boston Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1636-1652, September.
    11. Chen, Yan & Sönmez, Tayfun, 2011. "Corrigendum to "School choice: An experimental study" [J. Econ. Theory 127 (1) (2006) 202-231]," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 397-399, January.
    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.
    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. Umut Dur & Robert G. Hammond & Thayer Morrill, 2019. "The Secure Boston Mechanism: theory and experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 918-953, December.
    2. Christian Basteck & Marco Mantovani, 2023. "Aiding applicants: leveling the playing field within the immediate acceptance mechanism," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(1), pages 187-220, February.
    3. Yan Chen & Peter Cramton & John A. List & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "Market Design, Human Behavior, and Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5317-5348, September.
    4. Dur, Umut & Hammond, Robert G. & Kesten, Onur, 2021. "Sequential school choice: Theory and evidence from the field and lab," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    5. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Tommy Andersson, 2022. "School Choice," NBER Working Papers 29822, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Chen, Yan & Kesten, Onur, 2019. "Chinese college admissions and school choice reforms: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 83-100.
    7. Ha, Wei & Kang, Le & Song, Yang, 2020. "College matching mechanisms and matching stability: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 206-226.
    8. Chen, Yan & Jiang, Ming & Kesten, Onur & Robin, Stéphane & Zhu, Min, 2018. "Matching in the large: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 295-317.
    9. Rustamdjan Hakimov & Dorothea Kübler, 2021. "Experiments on centralized school choice and college admissions: a survey," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 434-488, June.
    10. Zhang, Jun, 2021. "Level-k reasoning in school choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-17.
    11. Yan Chen & Yingzhi Liang & Tayfun Sönmez, 2016. "School choice under complete information: An experimental study," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 1(1), pages 45-82, December.
    12. Ayoade, Nickesha & Pápai, Szilvia, 2023. "School choice with preference rank classes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 317-341.
    13. Hayri Alper Arslan & Yang Song & Tong Wang, 2024. "Preference submission timing and college admission outcomes: evidence from Turkey," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 28(1), pages 189-241, February.
    14. Basteck, Christian & Klaus, Bettina & Kübler, Dorothea, 2021. "How lotteries in school choice help to level the playing field," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 198-237.
    15. Tong Wang & Congyi Zhou, 2020. "High school admission reform in China: a welfare analysis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(3), pages 215-269, December.
    16. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Flip Klijn & Marc Vorsatz, 2023. "Constrained school choice: an experimental QRE analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 587-624, October.
    17. Min Zhu, 2013. "College Admissions in China : A Mechanism Design Perspective," Working Papers 1327, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Etienne (GATE Lyon St-Etienne), Université de Lyon.
    18. Zhu, Min, 2014. "College admissions in China: A mechanism design perspective," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 618-631.
    19. Zhiyi Xu & Robert G. Hammond, 2024. "Designing school choice mechanisms: A structural model and demand estimation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 505-524, April.
    20. Harless, Patrick, 2014. "A School Choice Compromise: Between Immediate and Deferred Acceptance," MPRA Paper 61417, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    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
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    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:nea:journl:y:2025:i:69:p:12-35. 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: Alexey Tcharykov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nearuea.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.