Paper detail

Competitive Equilibria in Matching Markets with Budgets

We study competitive equilibria in the classic Shapley-Shubik assignment model with indivisible goods and unit-demand buyers, with budget constraints: buyers can specify a maximum price they are willing to pay for each item, beyond which they cannot afford the item. This single discontinuity introduced by the budget constraint fundamentally changes the properties of equilibria: in the assignment model without budget constraints, a competitive equilibrium always exists, and corresponds exactly to a stable matching. With budgets, a competitive equilibrium need not always exist. In addition, there are now two distinct notions of stability, depending on whether both or only one of the buyer and seller can strictly benefit in a blocking pair, that no longer coincide due to the budget-induced discontinuity. We define weak and strong stability for the assignment model with transferable utilities, and show that competitive equilibria correspond exactly to strongly stable matchings. We consider the algorithmic question of efficiently computing competitive equilibria in an extension of the assignment model with budgets, where each buyer specifies his preferences over items using utility functions $u_{ij}$, where $u_{ij}(p_j)$ is the utility of buyer $i$ for item $j$ when its price is $p_j$. Our main result is a strongly polynomial time algorithm that decides whether or not a competitive equilibrium exists and if yes, computes a minimum one, for a general class of utility functions $u_{ij}$. This class of utility functions includes the standard quasi-linear utility model with a budget constraint, and in addition, allows modeling marketplaces where, for example, buyers only have a preference ranking amongst items subject to a maximum payment limit for each item, or where buyers want to optimize return on investment (ROI) instead of a quasi-linear utility and only know items' relative values.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.