Design of Lotteries and Wait-Lists for Affordable Housing Allocation

References

• Agarwal N, Ashlagi I, Rees M, Somaini P, Waldinger D (2018) An empirical framework for sequential assignments: The allocation of deceased donor kidneys. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
• Akbarpour M, Li S, Gharan SO (2017) Thickness and information in dynamic matching markets. Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Alatas V, Purnamasari R, Wai-Poi M, Banerjee A, Olken BA, Hanna R (2016) Self-targeting: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. J. Political Econom. 124(2):371–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Burq M, Jaillet P, Manshadi V (2018) On matching and thickness in heterogeneous dynamic markets. Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Baccara M, Lee S, Yariv L (2018) Optimal dynamic matching. Working paper, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
• Bertsekas DP (2012) Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, Vol. II: Approximate Dynamic Programming, 4th ed. (Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA).Google Scholar
• Blackorby C, Donaldson D (1988) Cash versus kind, self-selection, and efficient transfers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 78(4):691–700.Google Scholar
• Bloch F, Cantala D (2017) Dynamic assignment of objects to queuing agents. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 9(1):88–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakravarty S, Kaplan TR (2013) Optimal allocation without transfer payments. Games Econom. Behav. 77(1):1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clementi F, Gallegati M (2005) Pareto’s law of income distribution: Evidence for Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Chatterjee A, Yarlagadda S, Chakrabarti BK, eds. Econophysics of Wealth Distributions (Springer, Milan), 3–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Condorelli D (2012) What money can’t buy: Efficient mechanism design with costly signals. Games Econom. Behav. 75(2):613–624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Damiano E, Lam R (2005) Stability in dynamic matching markets. Games Econom. Behav. 52(1):34–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deshpande M, Li Y (2017) Who is screened out? Application costs and the targeting of disability programs. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dickerson JP, Procaccia AD, Sandholm T (2012) Dynamic matching via weighted myopia with application to kidney exchange. Hoffmann J, Selman B, eds. Proc. 26th AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA), 1340–1346.Google Scholar
• Doval L (2018) A theory of stability in dynamic matching markets. Technical report, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.Google Scholar
• Geyer J, Sieg H (2013) Estimating a model of excess demand for public housing. Quant. Econom. 4(3):483–513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glaeser EL, Luttmer EFP (2003) The misallocation of housing under rent control. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(4):1027–1046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gurvich I, Ward A (2014) On the dynamic control of matching queues. Stochastic Systems 4(2):479–523.Link, Google Scholar
• Hartline JD, Roughgarden T (2008) Optimal mechanism design and money burning. Ladner R, Dwork C, eds. Proc. 40th Annual ACM Sympos. Theory Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 75–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoppe HC, Moldovanu B, Sela A (2009) The theory of assortative matching based on costly signals. Rev. Econom. Stud. 76(1):253–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1987a) Analyzing tenant assignment policies. Management Sci. 33(3):395–408.Link, Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1987b) Tenant assignment policies with time-dependent priorities. Socio-Econom. Planning Sci. 21(5):305–310.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan EH (1988) A public housing queue with reneging and task-specific servers. Decision Sci. 19(2):383–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kennes J, Monte D, Tumennasan N (2014) The day care assignment: A dynamic matching problem. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 6(4):362–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kurino M (2009) Credibility, efficiency, and stability: A theory of dynamic matching markets. Technical report, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
• Leshno JD (2017) Dynamic matching in overloaded waiting lists. Working paper, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (2017) Low-income public housing statement of policies. Accessed October 22, 2018, http://mphaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2018-Low-Income-Public-Housing-Statement-of-Policies.pdf.Google Scholar
• Nichols AL, Zeckhauser RJ (1982) Targeting transfers through restrictions on recipients. Amer. Econom. Rev. 72(2):372–377.Google Scholar
• Pelley L (2018) Regent park affordable housing lottery draws thousands—and highlights supply “crisis,” advocates say. CBC News (October 1), https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/regent-park-affordable-housing-lottery-draws-thousands-and-highlights-supply-crisis-advocates-say-1.4841184.Google Scholar
• Pereyra JS (2013) A dynamic school choice model. Games Econom. Behav. 80(July):100–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C (2017) The allocation of food to food banks. Technical report, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Providence Housing Authority (2018) Public housing FAQ. Accessed October 22, 2018, http://pha-providence.com/housing/public-housing-admissions/public-housing-faqs/.Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sotomayor M (1992) Two-sided matching. Aumann R, Hart S, eds. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, vol. 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 485–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2004) Kidney exchange. Quart. J. Econom. 119(2):457–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Satow J (2019) Better than the Powerball. New York Times (January 11), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/realestate/better-than-the-powerball.html.Google Scholar
• Schummer J (2016) Influencing waiting lists. Technical report, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
• Sieg H, Yoon C (2017) Waiting for affordable housing. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2011) Matching, allocation, and exchange of discrete resources. Benhabib J, Bisin A, Jackson M, eds. Handbook of Social Economics, vol. 1A (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 781–852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios S (2004) Patient choice in kidney allocation: The role of the queueing discipline. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 6(4):280–301.Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA (2005) Patient choice in kidney allocation: A sequential stochastic assignment model. Oper. Res. 53(3):443–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA (2006) Recipient choice can address the efficiency-equity trade-off in kidney transplantation: A mechanism design model. Management Sci. 52(11):1647–1660.Link, Google Scholar
• Thakral N (2016) The public-housing allocation problem. Technical report, Harvard University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Van Ommeren JN, Van der Vlist AJ (2016) Households’ willingness to pay for public housing. J. Urban Econom. 92(March):91–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waldinger D (2018) Targeting in-kind transfers through market design: A revealed preference analysis of public housing allocation. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar