Organizing time banks: Lessons from matching markets

A time bank is a group of individuals and/or organizations in a local community that set up a common platform to trade services among themselves. There are several well-known problems associated with this type of banking, e.g., high overhead costs for record keeping and difficulties to identify feasible trades. This paper demonstrates that these problems can be solved by organizing time banks as a centralized matching market and, more specifically, by organizing trades based on a non-manipulable mechanism that selects an individually rational and time-balanced allocation which maximizes exchanges among the members of the time bank (and those allocations are efficient). Such a mechanism does not exist on the general preference domain but on a smaller yet natural domain where agents classify services as unacceptable and acceptable (and for those services agents have specific upper quotas representing their maximum needs). On the general preference domain, it is demonstrated that the proposed mechanism at least can prevent some groups of agents from manipulating the mechanism without dispensing individual rationality, efficiency, or time-balance.

[1]  L. Hurwicz On informationally decentralized systems , 1977 .

[2]  D. Gale,et al.  The Strategy Structure of Two Sided Matching Markets , 1985 .

[3]  James Schummer,et al.  Strategy-proofness versus efficiency for small domains of preferences over public goods , 1999 .

[4]  Haris Aziz,et al.  Generalizing Top Trading Cycles for Housing Markets with Fractional Endowments , 2015, ArXiv.

[5]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  A theory of school‐choice lotteries , 2015 .

[6]  Tommy Andersson,et al.  Budget-Balance, Fairness and Minimal Manipulability , 2014 .

[7]  F. Echenique,et al.  A Theory of Stability in Many-to-Many Matching Markets , 2004 .

[8]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Dual-Donor Organ Exchange , 2017 .

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

[10]  L. Shapley,et al.  The assignment game I: The core , 1971 .

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

[12]  G. Seyfang Time banks: rewarding community self-help in the inner city? , 2004 .

[13]  Jay Sethuraman,et al.  House allocation with fractional endowments , 2011, Int. J. Game Theory.

[14]  Tayfun Sönmez Strategy‐proofness and Essentially Single‐valued Cores , 1999 .

[15]  Alexander Westkamp,et al.  Strategy-proof exchange under trichotomous preferences , 2021, J. Econ. Theory.

[16]  David Manlove,et al.  Maximum Weight Cycle Packing in Directed Graphs, with Application to Kidney Exchange Programs , 2009, Discret. Math. Algorithms Appl..

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

[18]  Scott Duke Kominers,et al.  Contract design and stability in many-to-many matching , 2017, Games Econ. Behav..

[19]  Jerry R. Green,et al.  Incentives in public decision-making , 1979 .

[20]  Haris Aziz,et al.  Mechanisms for House Allocation with Existing Tenants under Dichotomous Preferences , 2016, Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design.

[21]  David A. Freedman,et al.  Machiavelli and the Gale-Shapley Algorithm , 1981 .

[22]  José Alcalde,et al.  Top dominance and the possibility of strategy-proof stable solutions to matching problems , 1994 .

[23]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  The Economics of Matching: Stability and Incentives , 1982, Math. Oper. Res..

[24]  M. Jackson,et al.  Strategy-Proof Exchange , 1995 .

[25]  Jonathan Croall LETS Act Locally: The Growth of Local Exchange Trading Systems , 1997 .

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

[27]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Credible group stability in many-to-many matching problems , 2006, J. Econ. Theory.

[28]  H. Moulin,et al.  Random Matching under Dichotomous Preferences , 2004 .

[29]  Paula Jaramillo,et al.  The Difference Indifference Makes in Strategy-Proof Allocation of Objects , 2012, J. Econ. Theory.

[30]  Jorge Alcalde-Unzu,et al.  Exchange of indivisible goods and indifferences: The Top Trading Absorbing Sets mechanisms , 2009, Games Econ. Behav..