Respecting Improvement in Markets with Indivisible Goods

References

• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (1999) House allocation with existing tenants. J. Econom. Theory 88(2):233–260. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Abdulkadiroğlu A, Sönmez T (2003) School choice: A mechanism design approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):729–747.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bird CG (1984) Group incentive compatibility in a market with indivisible goods. Econom. Lett. 14(4):309–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Biró P, Klijn F, Klimentova X, Viana A (2024) Shapley–Scarf housing markets: Respecting improvement, integer programming, and kidney exchange. Math. Oper. Res. 49(3):1938–1972.Link, Google Scholar
• Biró P, Haase-Kromwijk B, Andersson T, Ásgeirsson EI, Baltesová T, Boletis I, Bolotinha C, et al. (2019) Building kidney exchange programmes in Europe—An overview of exchange practice and activities. Transplantation 103(7):1514–1522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Biró P, van de Klundert J, Manlove D, Pettersson W, Andersson T, Burnapp L, Chromy P, et al. (2021) Modelling and optimisation in European Kidney Exchange Programmes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 291(2):447–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bogomolnaia A, Deb R, Ehlers L (2005) Strategy-proof assignment on the full preference domain. J. Econom. Theory 123(2):161–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Combe J, Tercieux O, Terrier C (2022) The design of teacher assignment: Theory and evidence. Rev. Econom. Stud. 89(6):3154–3222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Combe J, Dur U, Tercieux O, Terrier C, Ünver MU (2025) Market design for distributional objectives in (re)assignment: An application to improve the distribution of teachers in schools. Working paper, Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1050, Boston CollegeDepartment of Economics, Boston.Google Scholar
• Crawford VP (1991) Comparative statics in matching markets. J. Econom. Theory 54(2):389–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dur U, Ünver MU (2019) Two-sided matching via balanced exchange. J. Political Econom. 127(3):1156–1177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehlers L (2004) Monotonic and implementable solutions in generalized matching problems. J. Econom. Theory 114(2):358–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehlers L (2014) Top trading with fixed tie-breaking in markets with indivisible goods. J. Econom. Theory 151:64–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehlers L (2023) Respecting improvement in markets with indivisible goods. Preprint, submitted September 24, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4581876.Google Scholar
• Ekici Ö (2024) Pair-efficient reallocation of indivisible objects. Theoret. Econom. 19(2):551–564.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gale D, Shapley L (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Amer. Math. Monthly 69(1):9–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hatfield JW, Kojima F, Narita Y (2016) Improving schools through school choice: A market design approach. J. Econom. Theory 166:186–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirata D, Kasuya Y, Okumura Y (2023) Stability, strategy-proofness, and respect for improvements. Discussion Papers 2023-01, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.Google Scholar
• Jaramillo P, Manjunath V (2012) The difference indifference makes in strategy-proof allocation of objects. J. Econom. Theory 147(5):1913–1946.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klaus B, Klijn F, Sethuraman J (2025) A characterization of the top-trading-cycles mechanism for housing markets via respecting-improvement. Econom. Lett. 247:112145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klaus B, Klijn F, Walzl M (2010) Farsighted house allocation. J. Math. Econom. 46(5):817–824.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kojima F (2010) Impossibility of stable and nonbossy matching mechanisms. Econom. Lett. 107(1):69–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kominers SD (2024) Respect for improvements and comparative statics in matching markets. J. Mechanism Institution Design 9(1):83–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kominers SD, Sönmez T (2016) Matching with slot-specific priorities: Theory. Theoret. Econom. 11(2):683–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krishna A, Wang Y (2007) The relationship between top trading cycles mechanism and top trading cycles and chains mechanism. J. Econom. Theory 132(1):539–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ma J (1994) Strategy-proofness and the strict core in a market with indivisibilities. Internat. J. Game Theory 23(1):75–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miyagawa E (2002) Strategy-proofness and the core in house allocation problems. Games Econom. Behav. 38(2):347–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pápai S (2000) Strategyproof assignment by hierarchical exchange. Econometrica 68(6):1403–1433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE (1982) Incentive compatibility in a market with indivisible goods. Econom. Lett. 9(2):127–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Postlewaite A (1977) Weak versus strong domination in a market with indivisible goods. J. Math. Econom. 4(2):131–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2004) Kidney exchange. Quart. J. Econom. 119(2):457–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saban D, Sethuraman J (2013) House allocation with indifferences: A generalization and a unified view. Proc. 14th ACM Conf. Electronic Commerce (EC ‘13) (ACM, New York), 803–820.Google Scholar
• Schlotter I, Mendoza-Cadena LM (2025) The strong core of housing markets with partial order preferences. Preprint, submitted February 5, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15834.Google Scholar
• Schlotter I, Biró P, Fleiner T (2025) The core of housing markets from an agent’s perspective: Is it worth sprucing up your home? Math. Oper. Res. 50(3):2199–2225.Link, Google Scholar
• Shapley L, Scarf H (1974) On cores and indivisibility. J. Math. Econom. 1(1):23–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sönmez T (1996) Implementation in generalized matching problems. J. Math. Econom. 26(4):429–439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sönmez T (1999) Strategy-proofness and essentially single-valued cores. Econometrica 67(3):677–689.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Svensson LG (1999) Strategy-proof allocation of indivisible goods. Soc. Choice Welfare 16(4):557–567.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wako J (1984) A note on the strong core of a market with indivisible goods. J. Math. Econom. 13(2):189–194.Crossref, Google Scholar