Optimizing for Distributional Goals in School Choice Problems

References

• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Agarwal N, Pathak P (2017) The welfare effects of coordinated assignment: Evidence form the New York City high school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107:3635–3689.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Pathak P, Roth A (2009) Strategy-proofness versus efficiency in matching with indifferences: Redesigning the NYC high school match. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99:1954–1978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: A mechanism design approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):1954–1978.Google Scholar
• Agrawal N, Somaini P (2018) Demand analysis using strategic reports: An application to a school choice mechnanism. Econometrica 86(2):391–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ajayi K (2012) School choice and educational mobility. Working paper, Boston University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Alva S, Manjunath V (2017) Strategy-proof Pareto-improvement under voluntary participation. J. Econom. Theory 181:121–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Shi P (2014a) Improving community cohesion in school choice via correlated-lottery implementation. Oper. Res. 62(6):1247–1268.Link, Google Scholar
• Ashlagi I, Shi P (2014b) Optimal allocation without money: An engineering approach. Management Sci. 62(4):1078–1097.Link, Google Scholar
• Azevedo E, Budish E (2018) Strategy-proofness in the large. Rev. Econom. Stud. 86(1):81–116.Google Scholar
• Azevedo E, Hatfield J (2018) Complementarity and multidimensional heterogeneity in matching markets. Working paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Azevedo E, Leshno J (2016) A supply and demand framework for two-sided matching markets. J. Political Econom. 124(5):1235–1268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baïou M, Balinski M (2000) The stable admissions polytope. Math. Programming 87:427–439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budish E, Che YK, Kojima F, Milgrom P (2013) Designing random allocation mechanisms: Theory and applications. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103:585–623.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgess S, Greaves E, Vignoles A, Wilson D (2014) What parents want: School preferences and school choice. Econom. J. (London) 125:1262–1289.Google Scholar
• Calsamiglia C, Fu C, Güell M (2020) Structural estimation of a model of school choices: The Boston mechanism vs. its alternatives. J. Political Econom. 128(2):642–680.Google Scholar
• Che YK, Tercieux O (2019) Efficiency and stability in large matching markets. J. Political Econom. 127(5):2301–2342.Google Scholar
• Che YK, Kim J, Kojima F (2019) Stable matching in large economies. Econometrica 87(1):65–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chicago Public Schools (2017) Admissions policy for magnet, selective enrollment and other options for knowledge schools and programs. Accessed December 4, 2017, http://policy.cps.edu/download.aspx?ID=82.Google Scholar
• Dur UM, Kominers SD, Pathak PA, Sonmez T (2013) The demise of walk zones in Boston: Priorities vs. precedence in school choice. NBER Working Paper No. 18981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Dur U, Kominers S, Pathak P, Sönmez T (2018) The demise of walk zones in Boston: Priorities vs. precedence in school choice. J. Political Econom. 126(6):2457–2479.Google Scholar
• Echenique F, Yenmez MB (2014) How to control controlled school choice. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(8):2679–2694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehlers L, Hafalir I, Yenmez MB, Yildirim M (2014) School choice with controlled choice constraints: Hard bounds versus soft bounds. J. Econom. Theory 153:648–683.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdil A, Ergin H (2008) What’s the matter with tie-breaking? Improving efficiency in school choice. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98:669–689.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdil A, Kumano T (2013) Prioritizing diversity in school choice. Working paper, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
• Fack G, Grenet J, He Y (2019) Beyond truth-telling: Preference estimation with centralized school choice. Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(4):1486–1529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fragiadakis D, Troyan P (2017) Improving matching under hard distributional constraints. Theoret. Econom. 12:863–908.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gale D, Shapley LS (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Amer. Math. Monthly 69:9–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hafalir I, Yenmez M, Yildirim M (2013) Effective affirmative action in school choice. Theoret. Econom. 8:325–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hastings J, Kane T, Staiger D (2009) Heterogeneous preferences and the efficacy of public school choice. Working paper, Department of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
• He Y (2017) Gaming the Boston school choice mechanism in Beijing. Working paper, Toulouse School of Economics, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
• Immorlica N, Mahdian M (2005) Marriage, honesty, and stability. SODA '05 Proc. 16th Annual ACM-SIAM Sympos. Discrete Algorithms (ACM, New York), 53–62.Google Scholar
• Kamada Y, Kojima F (2015) Efficient matching under distributional concerns: Theory and application. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105:67–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kapor A, Neilson C, Zimmerman S (2017) Heterogeneous beliefs and school choice mechanisms. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Kesten O (2010) School choice with consent. Quart. J. Econom. 125(3):1297–1348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kesten O, Unver U (2015) A theory of school-choice lotteries. Theoret. Econom. 10:543–595.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kojima F, Manea M (2006) Strategy-proofness of the probabilistic serial mechanism in large random assignment problems. Working paper, Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Kojima F, Pathak P (2009) Incentives and stability in large two sided matching markets. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(3):608–627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kominers S, Sönmez T (2016) Matching with slot-specific priorities: Theory. Theoret. Econom. 11(2):683–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee S (2017) Incentive compatibility of large centralized matching markets. Rev. Econom. Stud. 84(1):444–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Pycia M (2016) Ordinal efficiency, fairness, and incentives in large markets. Working paper, Department of Economics, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Manea M (2009) Asymptotic ordinal inefficiency of random serial dictatorship. Theoret. Econom. 4:165–197.Google Scholar
• Pathak P, Shi P (2020) How well do structural demand models work? Counterfactual predictions in school choice. J. Econometrics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Roth A, Peranson E (1999) The redesign of the matching market for American physicians: Some engineering aspects of market design. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(4):748–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth A, Rothblum U, Vande Vate J (1993) Stable matchings, optimal assignments, and linear programming. Math. Oper. Res. 18:803–828.Link, Google Scholar
• Roth A, Sotomayor M (1990) Two Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi P (2016) Assortment planning in school choice. Working paper, MIT Operations Research Center, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar