IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/keo/dpaper/2024-023.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who makes the cut? Endogenous priority design for heterogeneous groups of agents

Author

Listed:
  • Tetsutaro Hatakeyama

    (Graduate School of Economics, Keio University)

  • Onur Kesten

    (School of Economics, University of Sydney)

  • Morimitsu Kurino

    (Faculty of Economics, Keio University)

Abstract

Priorities over agents are crucial primitives in assignment problems of indivisible objects without monetary transfers. Motivated by the student assignment problem to exchange programs in Japan, we introduce the so-called prioritization problem: how does one go about allocating overdemanded goods when each agent possesses one of several attributes while priority orders are established only among agents sharing the same attribute? Other applications include rationing of medical supplies, elective surgery scheduling, visa assignment and affirmative action. We show that two types of assignment protocols stand out when basic fairness and efficiency requirements are pursued in a consistent manner when randomization is used only as a last resort.

Suggested Citation

  • Tetsutaro Hatakeyama & Onur Kesten & Morimitsu Kurino, 2024. "Who makes the cut? Endogenous priority design for heterogeneous groups of agents," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2024-023, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    • Handle: RePEc:keo:dpaper:2024-023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ies.keio.ac.jp/upload/DP2024-023_EN.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer & René Romen, 2024. "Relaxed notions of Condorcet-consistency and efficiency for strategyproof social decision schemes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(1), pages 19-55, August.
    2. Chao Huang, 2021. "Stable matching: an integer programming approach," Papers 2103.03418, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2022.
    3. Grenet, Julien & He, YingHua & Kübler, Dorothea, 2022. "Preference Discovery in University Admissions: The Case for Dynamic Multioffer Mechanisms," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 130(6), pages 1-1.
    4. Ivan Balbuzanov & Maciej H. Kotowski, 2019. "Endowments, Exclusion, and Exchange," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1663-1692, September.
    5. Ehlers, Lars & Klaus, Bettina, 2006. "Efficient priority rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 372-384, May.
    6. repec:cty:dpaper:10.1016/j.geb.2020.08.009 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Korpela, Ville & Lombardi, Michele & Saulle, Riccardo D., 2024. "Designing rotation programs: Limits and possibilities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 77-102.
    8. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer, 2024. "Weak Strategyproofness in Randomized Social Choice," Papers 2412.11977, arXiv.org.
    9. Roth, Alvin E. & Sonmez, Tayfun & Utku Unver, M., 2005. "Pairwise kidney exchange," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 151-188, December.
    10. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer & Warut Suksompong, 2022. "Incentives in Social Decision Schemes with Pairwise Comparison Preferences," Papers 2204.12436, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    11. Diebold, Franz & Bichler, Martin, 2017. "Matching with indifferences: A comparison of algorithms in the context of course allocation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 268-282.
    12. Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Toward an Ethical Experiment," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    13. Eric van Damme & Xu Lang, 2022. "Two-Person Bargaining when the Disagreement Point is Private Information," Papers 2211.06830, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    14. Ping Zhan, 2023. "A Simple Characterization of Assignment Mechanisms on Set Constraints," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 1-15, June.
    15. Kesten, Onur, 2009. "Why do popular mechanisms lack efficiency in random environments?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 2209-2226, September.
    16. Kojima, Fuhito, 2013. "Efficient resource allocation under multi-unit demand," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-14.
    17. Youngsub Chun & Boram Park, 2017. "A graph theoretic approach to the slot allocation problem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(1), pages 133-152, January.
    18. Hervé Crès & Hervé Moulin, 2001. "Scheduling with Opting Out: Improving upon Random Priority," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 565-577, August.
    19. Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Experiment-as-Market: Incorporating Welfare into Randomized Controlled Trials," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127r, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2019.
    20. Ortega, Josué, 2020. "Multi-unit assignment under dichotomous preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 15-24.
    21. Kesten, Onur & Unver, Utku, 2015. "A theory of school choice lotteries," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(2), May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Priority-based assignment; Equity in attributes; Market design;
    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
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    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:keo:dpaper:2024-023. 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: Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iekeijp.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.