MATCHING MARKETS WITH MIXED OWNERSHIP: THE CASE FOR A REAL‐LIFE ASSIGNMENT MECHANISM

Pablo Guillen and Onur Kesten

International Economic Review, 2012, vol. 53, issue 3, 1027-1046

Abstract: We consider a common indivisible good allocation problem whose popular applications include on‐campus housing, kidney exchange, and school choice. We show that the so‐called New House 4 (NH4) mechanism, which has been in use at MIT since the 1980s, is equivalent to a natural adaptation of the well‐known Gale–Shapley (GS) mechanism. We run two experiments comparing NH4 with the prominently advocated Top Trading Cycles (TTC) mechanism and NH4 with GS. We find that under NH4, the participation rate is significantly higher than under TTC. Based on a new ordinal test of efficiency, NH4 is more likely to Pareto dominate TTC.

Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (21)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2012.00710.x

Related works:
Working Paper: Matching Markets with Mixed Ownership: The Case for A Real-life Assignment Mechanism (2010)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:iecrev:v:53:y:2012:i:3:p:1027-1046

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0020-6598

Access Statistics for this article

International Economic Review is currently edited by Michael O'Riordan and Dirk Krueger

More articles in International Economic Review from Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association 160 McNeil Building, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6297. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().