IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2602.10428.html

Filling Positions Without Transfers: Screening on Outside Options

Author

Listed:
  • Morteza Honarvar
  • Joanna Krysta
  • Eric Tang

Abstract

A designer offers vertically-differentiated positions to agents in the absence of transfers. Agents have private outside options and may reject their offers ex-post. The designer has preferences over the quantity of agents who accept each position. We show that under a general condition on the distribution of outside options, an optimal mechanism for the designer offers all agents an identical lottery, and we characterize this mechanism. When our condition does not hold, the optimal mechanism may require screening agents by offering a menu of distinct lotteries. Our results follow from a decomposition of agents' participation probabilities in any feasible mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Morteza Honarvar & Joanna Krysta & Eric Tang, 2026. "Filling Positions Without Transfers: Screening on Outside Options," Papers 2602.10428, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2602.10428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.10428
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier Compte & Philippe Jehiel, 2009. "Veto Constraint in Mechanism Design: Inefficiency with Correlated Types," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 182-206, February.
    2. Philippe Jehiel & Olivier Compte, 2007. "On Quitting Rights in Mechanism Design," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 137-141, May.
    3. Eric Budish, 2011. "The Combinatorial Assignment Problem: Approximate Competitive Equilibrium from Equal Incomes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(6), pages 1061-1103.
    4. Miralles, Antonio, 2012. "Cardinal Bayesian allocation mechanisms without transfers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 179-206.
    5. Hylland, Aanund & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1979. "The Efficient Allocation of Individuals to Positions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(2), pages 293-314, April.
    6. Eric Budish & Yeon-Koo Che & Fuhito Kojima & Paul Milgrom, 2013. "Designing Random Allocation Mechanisms: Theory and Applications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 585-623, April.
    7. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2015. "Size versus fairness in the assignment problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 119-127.
    8. Harald Uhlig, 1996. "A law of large numbers for large economies (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 8(1), pages 41-50.
    9. Akbarpour, Mohammad & Kapor, Adam & Neilson, Christopher & van Dijk, Winnie & Zimmerman, Seth, 2022. "Centralized School choice with unequal outside options," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    10. Hervé Crès & Hervé Moulin, 2001. "Scheduling with Opting Out: Improving upon Random Priority," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 565-577, August.
    11. Bocar Ba & Patrick Bayer & Nayoung Rim & Roman Rivera & Modibo Sidibé, 2021. "Police Officer Assignment and Neighborhood Crime," NBER Working Papers 29243, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Hervé Crès & Hervé Moulin, 2001. "Scheduling with Opting Out: Improving upon Random Priority," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 565-577, August.
    13. Myerson, Roger B, 1979. "Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 61-73, January.
    14. Itai Ashlagi & Peng Shi, 2016. "Optimal Allocation Without Money: An Engineering Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 1078-1097, April.
    15. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2001. "A New Solution to the Random Assignment Problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 295-328, October.
    16. Yeon-Koo Che & Fuhito Kojima, 2010. "Asymptotic Equivalence of Probabilistic Serial and Random Priority Mechanisms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(5), pages 1625-1672, 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. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Moulin, Herve, 2015. "Size versus fairness in the assignment problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 119-127.
    2. Eun Jeong Heo & Vikram Manjunath, 2017. "Implementation in stochastic dominance Nash equilibria," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 5-30, January.
    3. Shende, Priyanka & Purohit, Manish, 2023. "Strategy-proof and envy-free mechanisms for house allocation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    4. Th`anh Nguyen & Alexander Teytelboym & Shai Vardi, 2025. "Efficiency, Envy, and Incentives in Combinatorial Assignment," Papers 2509.13198, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2025.
    5. Miralles, Antonio & Pycia, Marek, 2021. "Foundations of pseudomarkets: Walrasian equilibria for discrete resources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Onur Kesten & Morimitsu Kurino & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2017. "Efficient lottery design," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 31-57, January.
    7. Nguyen, Thành & Peivandi, Ahmad & Vohra, Rakesh, 2016. "Assignment problems with complementarities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 209-241.
    8. Huang, Chao & Tian, Guoqiang, 2017. "Guaranteed size ratio of ordinally efficient and envy-free mechanisms in the assignment problem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-8.
    9. Hashimoto, Tadashi, 2018. "The generalized random priority mechanism with budgets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 708-733.
    10. Thanh Nguyen & Ahmad Peivandi & Rakesh Vohra, 2014. "One-Sided Matching with Limited Complementarities," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-030, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    11. Martin Bichler & Soeren Merting, 2021. "Randomized Scheduling Mechanisms: Assigning Course Seats in a Fair and Efficient Way," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(10), pages 3540-3559, October.
    12. Filip Tokarski, 2026. "Targeting Without Transfers," Papers 2602.00487, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    13. Balbuzanov, Ivan, 2022. "Constrained random matching," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    14. Demeulemeester, Tom & Goossens, Dries & Hermans, Ben & Leus, Roel, 2023. "A pessimist’s approach to one-sided matching," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(3), pages 1087-1099.
    15. Jugal Garg & Yixin Tao & L'aszl'o A. V'egh, 2025. "Tight Efficiency Bounds for the Probabilistic Serial and Related Mechanisms," Papers 2507.03359, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    16. Akyol, Ethem, 2023. "Inefficiency of Random Serial Dictatorship under incomplete information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    17. Yinghua He & Antonio Miralles & Marek Pycia & Jianye Yan, 2018. "A Pseudo-Market Approach to Allocation with Priorities," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 272-314, August.
    18. Haris Aziz & Yoichi Kasajima, 2017. "Impossibilities for probabilistic assignment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(2), pages 255-275, August.
    19. Eduardo M Azevedo & Eric Budish, 2019. "Strategy-proofness in the Large," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 81-116.
    20. Chatterji, Shurojit & Liu, Peng, 2024. "On the decomposability of fractional allocations," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 79-89.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2602.10428. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.