Pareto Efficient Strategy-proof School Choice Mechanism with Minimum Quotas and Initial Endowments

This paper develops a strategy-proof and Pareto efficient mechanism for a school choice program called Top Trading Cycles among Representatives with Supplementary Seats (TTCR-SS). We consider a setting where minimum quotas are imposed for each school, i.e., a school is required to be assigned at least a certain number of students to operate, and the obtained matching must respect initial endowments, i.e., each student must be assigned to a school that is at least as good as her initial endowment school. Although minimum quotas are relevant in school choice programs and strategy-proofness is important to many policymakers, few existing mechanisms achieve both of them simultaneously. Furthermore, existing mechanisms require that all students consider all schools acceptable to obtain a feasible matching that respects minimum quotas and cannot guarantee Pareto efficiency. TTCR-SS is based on Top Trading Cycles (TTC) mechanism, while it is significantly extended to handle the supplementary seats of schools while respecting minimum quotas. Our simulation results show TTCR-SS is significantly better than an existing TTC-based mechanism in terms of students' welfare.

[1]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Incentive Compatible Allocation and Exchange of Discrete Resources , 2015 .

[2]  Isa Emin Hafalir,et al.  School Choice with Controlled Choice Constraints: Hard Bounds Versus Soft Bounds , 2011, J. Econ. Theory.

[3]  Dorothea Kübler,et al.  Implementing Quotas in University Admissions: An Experimental Analysis , 2011 .

[4]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Strategyproof Matching with Minimum Quotas , 2016, TEAC.

[5]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  HOUSE ALLOCATION WITH EXISTING TENANTS , 1999 .

[6]  U. Dur A Characterization of the Top Trading Cycles Mechanism for the School Choice Problem , 2012 .

[7]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Controlled School Choice with Soft Bounds and Overlapping Types , 2015, AAAI.

[8]  T. Morrill An alternative characterization of top trading cycles , 2013 .

[9]  Isa Emin Hafalir,et al.  Effective affirmative action in school choice , 2011 .

[10]  F. A. Hayek The American Economic Review , 2007 .

[11]  S. Pápai,et al.  Strategyproof Assignment by Hierarchical Exchange , 2000 .

[12]  Yeon-Koo Che,et al.  The Role of Priorities in Assigning Indivisible Objects : A Characterization of Top Trading Cycles , 2010 .

[13]  Jinpeng Ma Strategy-proofness and the strict core in a market with indivisibilities , 1994 .

[14]  A. Roth Incentive compatibility in a market with indivisible goods , 1982 .

[15]  L. S. Shapley,et al.  College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage , 2013, Am. Math. Mon..

[16]  Alexander Westkamp An analysis of the German university admissions system , 2013 .

[17]  Andrew Postlewaite,et al.  Weak Versus Strong Domination in a Market with Indivisible Goods , 1977 .

[18]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Designing matching mechanisms under constraints: An approach from discrete convex analysis , 2018, J. Econ. Theory.

[19]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Two-Sided Matching via Balanced Exchange: Tuition and Worker Exchanges , 2015 .

[20]  Onur Kesten,et al.  On two competing mechanisms for priority-based allocation problems , 2006, J. Econ. Theory.

[21]  Flip Klijn,et al.  Constrained school choice , 2009, J. Econ. Theory.

[22]  Fuhito Kojima,et al.  School choice: Impossibilities for affirmative action , 2012, Games Econ. Behav..

[23]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Strategy-proof matching with regional minimum quotas , 2014, AAMAS.

[24]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach , 2003 .

[25]  Aytek Erdil,et al.  What's the Matter with Tie-Breaking? Improving Efficiency in School Choice , 2008 .

[26]  David Manlove,et al.  The College Admissions problem with lower and common quotas , 2010, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[27]  L. Shapley,et al.  On cores and indivisibility , 1974 .