 Boston versus deferred acceptance in an interim setting: An experimental investigationClayton Featherstone and Muriel Niederle () Games and Economic Behavior, 2016, vol. 100, issue C, 353-375 Abstract: While much of the school choice literature advocates strategyproofness, recent research has aimed to improve efficiency using mechanisms that rely on non-truthtelling equilibria. We address two issues that arise from this approach. We first show that even in simple environments with ample feedback and repetition, agents fail to reach non-truthtelling equilibria. We offer another way forward: implementing truth-telling as an ordinal Bayes–Nash equilibrium rather than as a dominant strategy equilibrium. We show that this weaker solution concept can allow for more efficient mechanisms in theory and provide experimental evidence that this is also the case in practice. In fact, truth-telling rates are basically the same whether truthtelling is implemented as an ordinal Bayes–Nash equilibrium or a dominant strategy equilibrium. This provides a proof-of-concept that ordinal Bayes–Nash design might provide a middle path, achieving efficiency gains over strategy-proof mechanisms without relying on real-life agents playing a non-truth-telling equilibrium. Keywords: School choice mechanisms; Market design; Experimental economics; Matching theory (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:100:y:2016:i:c:p:353-375 DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2016.10.005 Access Statistics for this article Games and Economic Behavior is currently edited by E. Kalai More articles in Games and Economic Behavior from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.