Paper detail

The Competition for Partners in Matching Markets

We study the competition for partners in two-sided matching markets with heterogeneous agent preferences, with a focus on how the equilibrium outcomes depend on the connectivity in the market. We model random partially connected markets, with each agent having an average degree $d$ in a random (undirected) graph, and a uniformly random preference ranking over their neighbors in the graph. We formally characterize stable matchings in large markets random with small imbalance and find a threshold in the connectivity $d$ at $\log^2 n$ (where $n$ is the number of agents on one side of the market) which separates a ``weak competition'' regime, where agents on both sides of the market do equally well, from a ``strong competition'' regime, where agents on the short (long) side of the market enjoy a significant advantage (disadvantage). Numerical simulations confirm and sharpen our theoretical predictions, and demonstrate robustness to our assumptions. We leverage our characterizations in two ways: First, we derive prescriptive insights into how to design the connectivity of the market to trade off optimally between the average agent welfare achieved and the number of agents who remain unmatched in the market. For most market primitives, we find that the optimal connectivity should lie in the weak competition regime or at the threshold between the regimes. Second, our analysis uncovers a new conceptual principle governing whether the short side enjoys a significant advantage in a given matching market, which can moreover be applied as a diagnostic tool given only basic summary statistics for the market. Counterfactual analyses using data on centralized high school admissions in a major USA city show the practical value of both our design insights and our diagnostic principle.

preprint2023arXivOpen 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.