IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/31612.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Experimental Evaluation of Deferred Acceptance: Evidence from Over 100 Army Officer Labor Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan M.V. Davis
  • Kyle Greenberg
  • Damon Jones

Abstract

We present evidence from a randomized trial of the impact of matching workers to jobs using the deferred acceptance (DA) algorithm. Our setting is the U.S. Army’s annual many-to-one marketplace that matches 10,000 officers to units. Officers and jobs are partitioned into over 100 distinct markets, our unit of randomization. Matching with DA reduced officers’ attrition in their first year in their new match by 16.7 percent, but we can rule out more than a 10 percent reduction in attrition by the end of their second year. Matching with DA had precise zero effects on performance evaluations and promotions. Although matching with DA increased truthful preference reporting by a statistically significant 10 percent, many officers matched by DA misreport their true preferences. We present new evidence suggesting that communication and coordination of preferences may limit the benefits of DA in matching markets where each side actively ranks the other.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan M.V. Davis & Kyle Greenberg & Damon Jones, 2023. "An Experimental Evaluation of Deferred Acceptance: Evidence from Over 100 Army Officer Labor Markets," NBER Working Papers 31612, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:31612
    Note: LS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w31612.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General
    • M5 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics

    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:nbr:nberwo:31612. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.