IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/msuecw/2021_002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experimental and Noncooperative Analyses of Decentralized Matching with Transfers

Author

Listed:
  • He, Simin

    (Department of Economics, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)

  • Wu, Jiabin

    (Department of Economics, University of Oregon)

  • Zhang, Hanzhe

    (Michigan State University, Department of Economics)

Abstract

We experimentally and theoretically study decentralized matching markets with transfers of Shapley and Shubik (1972) and Becker (1973). Our contributions are threefold. First, our experiment shows that matching and aggregate surplus achieved are affected by whether efficient matching is assortative and whether the pairwise Nash-Rubinstein bargaining outcome (i.e., an equal split of every efficiently matched pair's surplus) is stable (i.e., in the core), neither of which is predicted to matter in the canonical theory. Second, in markets with equal numbers of participants on the two sides, individual payoffs in our and others' experiments cannot be explained by existing refinements of the core, but are consistent with our noncooperative model's unique prediction, which refines the core. Third and finally, in markets with unequal numbers of participants on the two sides, noncompetitive outcomes--that is, subjects on the long side of the market do not compete fully--are not captured by the canonical theory, but by our noncooperative model a la folk theorems.

Suggested Citation

  • He, Simin & Wu, Jiabin & Zhang, Hanzhe, 2021. "Experimental and Noncooperative Analyses of Decentralized Matching with Transfers," Working Papers 2021-2, Michigan State University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ris:msuecw:2021_002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.msu.edu/repec/wp/2108matchexp.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Herreiner, Dorothea K. & Puppe, Clemens, 2010. "Inequality aversion and efficiency with ordinal and cardinal social preferences--An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 238-253, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Plott, Charles & Roll, Richard & Seo, Han & Zhao, Hao, 2019. "Tick size, price grids and market performance: Stable matches as a model of market dynamics and equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 7-28.
    5. Xavier Gabaix & Augustin Landier, 2008. "Why has CEO Pay Increased So Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 123(1), pages 49-100.
    6. Joana Pais & Ágnes Pintér & Róbert F. Veszteg, 2020. "Decentralized matching markets with(out) frictions: a laboratory experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 212-239, March.
    7. Michael Kremer, 1993. "The O-Ring Theory of Economic Development," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 551-575.
    8. Marina Agranov & Matt Elliott, 2021. "Commitment and (in) Efficiency: A Bargaining Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 790-838.
    9. Ochs, Jack & Roth, Alvin E, 1989. "An Experimental Study of Sequential Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 355-384, June.
    10. Rochford, Sharon C., 1984. "Symmetrically pairwise-bargained allocations in an assignment market," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 262-281, December.
    11. Alfred Galichon, 2016. "Optimal transport methods in economics," Post-Print hal-03256830, HAL.
    12. Agranov, Marina & Dianat, Ahrash & Samuelson, Larry & Yariv, Leeat, 2021. "Paying to Match: Decentralized Markets with Information Frictions," CEPR Discussion Papers 15637, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Zhang, Hanzhe, 2020. "Pre-matching gambles," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 76-89.
    14. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    15. Bednar, Jenna & Chen, Yan & Liu, Tracy Xiao & Page, Scott, 2012. "Behavioral spillovers and cognitive load in multiple games: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 12-31.
    16. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    17. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    18. John William Hatfield & Charles R. Plott & Tomomi Tanaka, 2012. "Understanding Price Controls and Nonprice Competition with Matching Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 371-375, May.
    19. Zhang, Hanzhe, 2020. "A Marriage-Market Perspective on Risk-Taking and Career Choices: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers 2020-2, Michigan State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Marina Agranov & Matt Elliott, 0. "Commitment and (in) Efficiency: A Bargaining Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 790-838.
    21. He, Simin & Wu, Jiabin, 2020. "Compromise and coordination: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 216-233.
    22. Andrea Isoni & Anders Poulsen & Robert Sugden & Kei Tsutsui, 2014. "Efficiency, Equality, and Labeling: An Experimental Investigation of Focal Points in Explicit Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3256-3287, October.
    23. Agranov Agranov & Ahrash Dianat & Larry Samuelson & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Paying to Match: Decentralized Markets with Information Frictions," Working Papers 273, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    24. Roth, Alvin E & Murnighan, J Keith, 1982. "The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1123-1142, September.
    25. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    26. Alfred Galichon, 2016. "Optimal Transport Methods in Economics," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10870.
    27. Philipp Otto & Friedel Bolle, 2011. "Matching markets with price bargaining," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 322-348, September.
    28. SCHMEIDLER, David, 1969. "The nucleolus of a characteristic function game," LIDAM Reprints CORE 44, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    29. Elliott, Matt & Nava, Francesco, 2019. "Decentralized bargaining in matching markets: efficient stationary equilibria and the core," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87219, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    30. Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1990. "Decentralized Trading, Strategic Behaviour and the Walrasian Outcome," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 57(1), pages 63-78.
    31. Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Poulsen, Anders U. & Roos, Michael W.M., 2017. "Real-time tacit bargaining, payoff focality, and coordination complexity: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 687-699.
    32. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 560-596, December.
    33. Hanzhe Zhang, 2021. "An Investment-and-Marriage Model with Differential Fecundity: On the College Gender Gap," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(5), pages 1464-1486.
    34. Kelso, Alexander S, Jr & Crawford, Vincent P, 1982. "Job Matching, Coalition Formation, and Gross Substitutes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1483-1504, November.
    35. Hatfield, John William & Plott, Charles R. & Tanaka, Tomomi, 2016. "Price controls, non-price quality competition, and the nonexistence of competitive equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 134-163.
    36. Perry, Motty & Reny, Philip J, 1994. "A Noncooperative View of Coalition Formation and the Core," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 795-817, July.
    37. John William Hatfield & Scott Duke Kominers & Alexandru Nichifor & Michael Ostrovsky & Alexander Westkamp, 2013. "Stability and Competitive Equilibrium in Trading Networks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 966-1005.
    38. Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2019. "Experiments On Matching Markets: A Survey," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 153, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    39. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    40. Elliott, Matthew L. & Nava, Francesco, 2019. "Decentralized bargaining in matching markets: efficient stationary equilibria and the core," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.
    41. Nalbantian, Haig R & Schotter, Andrew, 1995. "Matching and Efficiency in the Baseball Free-Agent System: An Experimental Examination," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-31, January.
    42. Vulkan, Nir & Roth, Alvin E. & Neeman, Zvika (ed.), 2015. "The Handbook of Market Design," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198743774, November.
    43. Hoffman, Elizabeth & Spitzer, Matthew L, 1982. "The Coase Theorem: Some Experimental Tests," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 73-98, April.
    44. Becker, Gary S, 1973. "A Theory of Marriage: Part I," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 813-846, July-Aug..
    45. Yan Chen & Ming Jiang & Onur Kesten & Stéphane Robin & Min Zhu, 2018. "Matching in the large: An experimental study," Post-Print halshs-01973298, HAL.
    46. Pierre-André Chiappori & Bernard Salanié, 2016. "The Econometrics of Matching Models," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(3), pages 832-861, September.
    47. Marina Agranov & Ahrash Dianat & Larry Samuelson & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Paying to Match: Decentralized Markets with Information Frictions," CESifo Working Paper Series 8820, CESifo.
    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. Colin F. Camerer & Gideon Nave & Alec Smith, 2019. "Dynamic Unstructured Bargaining with Private Information: Theory, Experiment, and Outcome Prediction via Machine Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1867-1890, April.
    2. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    3. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2015. "Efficiency versus equality in real-time bargaining with communication," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-18, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    4. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2019. "Efficiency Versus Equality in Bargaining," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(6), pages 1941-1970.
    5. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How sensitive are bargaining outcomes to changes in disagreement payoffs?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 560-596, December.
    6. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2017. "The attraction and compromise effects in bargaining: Experimental evidence," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 17-04, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    7. Lambert, Eve-Angéline & Peterle, Emmanuel & Tisserand, Jean-Christian, 2019. "Pretrial settlement and coercion: An experiment," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    8. Li, Shuwen & Houser, Daniel, 2022. "Stochastic bargaining in the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 687-715.
    9. Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Poulsen, Anders U. & Roos, Michael W.M., 2017. "Real-time tacit bargaining, payoff focality, and coordination complexity: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 687-699.
    10. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    11. Nejat Anbarci & Nick Feltovich, 2013. "How responsive are people to changes in their bargaining position? Earned bargaining power and the 50–50 norm," EcoMod2013 5855, EcoMod.
    12. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2020. "On the empirical validity of axioms in unstructured bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-145.
    13. Tanjim Hossain & Elizabeth Lyons & Aloysius Siow, 2020. "Fairness considerations in joint venture formation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 632-667, September.
    14. Thomas Neumann & Stephan Schosser & Bodo Vogt, 2017. "The Impact of Previous Action on Bargaining—An Experiment on the Emergence of Preferences for Fairness Norms," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-9, August.
    15. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    16. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    17. Alfred Galichon & Bernard Salani'e, 2021. "Cupid's Invisible Hand: Social Surplus and Identification in Matching Models," Papers 2106.02371, arXiv.org.
    18. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    19. Kroll, Eike B. & Morgenstern, Ralf & Neumann, Thomas & Schosser, Stephan & Vogt, Bodo, 2014. "Bargaining power does not matter when sharing losses – Experimental evidence of equal split in the Nash bargaining game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 261-272.
    20. Zhang, Hanzhe, 2020. "Pre-matching gambles," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 76-89.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decentralized matching; matching with transfers; assignment games; bargaining experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General

    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:ris:msuecw:2021_002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edmsuus.html .

    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: Dean Olson III (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edmsuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.