Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T09:39:01.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The structure of priority in the school choice problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2019

Conal Duddy Open the ORCID record for Conal Duddy [Opens in a new window]
Conal Duddy*
Affiliation:
J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics and the Whitaker Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a school choice problem, each school has a priority ordering over the set of students. These orderings depend on criteria such as whether a student lives within walking distance or has a sibling at the school. A priority ordering provides a ranking of students but nothing more. I argue that this information is sufficient when priority is based on merit but not when priority is based on criteria such as walking distance. I propose an extended formulation of the problem wherein a ‘priority matrix’, indicating which criteria are satisfied by each student-school pair, replaces the usual priority orderings.

Keywords

School choicematchingpriority orderingjustified envy
Type
Article
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , November 2019 , pp. 361 - 381
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdulkadiroğlu, A., Che, Y.-K., Pathak, P. A., Roth, A. E. and Tercieux, O. 2017. Minimizing Justified Envy in School Choice: The Design of New Orleans’ Oneapp. NBER Working Paper Series 23265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdulkadiroğlu, A., Che, Y.-K. and Yasuda, Y. 2015. Expanding ‘choice’ in school choice. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 7, 1–42.Google Scholar
Abdulkadiroğlu, A. and Sönmez, T. 2003. School choice: a mechanism design approach. American Economic Review 93, 729–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balinski, M. and Sönmez, T. 1999. A tale of two mechanisms: student placement. Journal of Economic Theory 84, 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bó, I. 2016. Fair implementation of diversity in school choice. Games and Economic Behavior 97, 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echenique, F. and Yenmez, M. B. 2015. How to control controlled school choice. American Economic Review 105, 2679–2694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehlers, L., Hafalir, I. E., Yenmez, M. B. and Yildirim, M. A. 2014. School choice with controlled choice constraints: hard bounds versus soft bounds. Journal of Economic Theory 153, 648–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdil, A. and Ergin, H. 2008. What’s the matter with tie-breaking? Improving efficiency in school choice. American Economic Review 98, 669–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ergin, H. and Sönmez, T. 2006. Games of school choice under the Boston mechanism. Journal of Public Economics 90, 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, D. and Shapley, L. S. 1962. College admissions and the stability of marriage. American Mathematical Monthly 69, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafalir, I. E., Yenmez, M. B. and Yildirim, M. A. 2013. Effective affirmative action in school choice. Theoretical Economics 8, 325–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesten, O. 2010. School choice with consent. Quarterly Journal of Economics 125, 1297–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesten, O. and Ünver, M. U. 2015. A theory of school-choice lotteries. Theoretical Economics 10, 543–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kojima, F. 2012. School choice: impossibilities for affirmative action. Games and Economics Behavior 75, 685–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kominers, S. D. and Sönmez, T. 2016. Matching with slot-specific priorities: theory. Theoretical Economics 11, 683–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrill, T. 2013. An alternative characterization of top trading cycles. Economic Theory 54, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 1992. Getting Started: How Choice can Renew your Public Schools. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Özek, U. 2016. Fairness versus efficiency in public school assignments. Journal of Public Economic Theory 19, 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. 2008. What have we learned from market design? Economic Journal 118, 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sönmez, T. and Switzer, T. B. 2013. Matching with (branch-of-choice) contracts at the United States Military Academy. Econometrica 81, 451–488.Google Scholar
Svensson, L.-G. 1994. Queue allocation of indivisible goods. Social Choice and Welfare 11, 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar