
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2506528
handle: 10419/103142
We model centralized school matching as a second stage of a simple Tiebout-model and show that the two most discussed mechanisms, the deferred acceptance and the Boston algorithm, both produce inefficient outcomes and that the Boston mechanism is more efficient than deferred acceptance. This advantage vanishes if the participants get to know their priorities before they submit their preferences. Moreover, the mechanism creates artificial social segregation at the cost of the disadvantaged if the school priorities are based on ex ante known (social) differences of the applicants.
ddc:330, Tiebout-hypothesis, R23, deffered acceptance, social seggregation, school choice, deffered acceptance, Boston mechanism, Tiebout-hypothesis, social seggregation, H42, school choice, Boston mechanism, C78, jel: jel:C78, jel: jel:H42, jel: jel:R23
ddc:330, Tiebout-hypothesis, R23, deffered acceptance, social seggregation, school choice, deffered acceptance, Boston mechanism, Tiebout-hypothesis, social seggregation, H42, school choice, Boston mechanism, C78, jel: jel:C78, jel: jel:H42, jel: jel:R23
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
