Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.28471

Overlapping Reserves without a Common Priority: Theory and an Application to School Choice in Chile

Abstract

We study matching markets with overlapping reserves governed by heterogeneous priorities. When applicants qualify for multiple reserves, how they are routed can affect reserve utilization and which applicants are admitted. We introduce classify-and-rank choice rules that yield strategy-proof deferred acceptance mechanisms satisfying maximum reserve utilization and priority-respect. We axiomatically characterize our mechanism's admission outcomes for any given classification and reserve order. With two reserve categories, we provide a foundation for the reserve order and establish its distributional implications for access across eligibility groups. Using nine cycles of Chilean school admissions, which feature such reserves, we document reserve-utilization failures under the deployed mechanism and show that their frequency depends sharply on the reserve order. We show how our mechanism can be adapted to Chile's institutional setting to prevent such failures. Under this alternative mechanism, the reserve order generates a distributional pattern across eligibility groups, consistent with our theory.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Battal Doğan, Kenzo Imamura, M. Bumin Yenmez. 2026-10-20. Overlapping Reserves without a Common Priority: Theory and an Application to School Choice in Chile. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28471

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Collective decisions under uncertainty: efficiency, ex-ante fairness, and normalization

This paper studies preference aggregation under uncertainty in the multi-profile framework and characterizes a new class of aggregation rules that can address classical concerns about Harsanyi's (1995) utilitarian rules. Our aggregation rules, which we call \textit{relative fair aggregation rules}, are grounded in three key ideas: utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and the 0--1 normalization of individual utilities. These rules are parameterized by a set of weight vectors over individuals and evaluate each ambiguous alternative by taking the minimum weighted sum of 0--1 normalized utility levels over the weight set. For the characterization, we propose two novel axioms, \textit{weak preference for mixing} and \textit{restricted certainty independence}, with normative justifications. Additional results clarify how these axioms capture the utilitarian and egalitarian attitudes of the rules.

econ.TH↗

Submission quotas as self-screening when manuscript production is cheap

Generative AI enables authors to produce more manuscripts at lower cost. But evaluation by expert editors and referees remains scarce. In this context, the value of an author's submission rights can increase. Major research repositories and journals are reacting by imposing submission quotas and fees. Non-transferable author quotas transform submission of a manuscript into a revealed-priority decision. Authors construct a portfolio of their highest-ranked manuscripts. A common fee charges an author for every manuscript they submit. Both methods have drawbacks. Quotas do not flexibly allocate scarce review capacity to authors who have unusually strong realised candidate sets. Fees can generate heterogeneous submission thresholds that may be systematically related to an author's baseline portfolio quality. In this paper, I derive the condition under which submission quotas yield weakly higher mean reviewed value than fees, given an equal expected review load. When project values are bounded and candidate manuscripts are abundant, an equal-load fee can price out some authors entirely.

econ.TH↗

Falsification-proof non-market allocation mechanisms

Relying on manipulable characteristics to target the allocation of resources is fraught with difficulties. Naively optimal rules lead to falsification and allocative inefficiency. Optimizing the rule for allocative efficiency while accounting for falsification typically induces falsification, at a heavy cost to the agents. Moreover, falsification generates negative externalities. We characterize optimal falsification-proof rules under a broad range of falsification technologies. We also provide an honesty condition under which they solve the unconstrained problem of a planner who maximizes a weighted sum of allocative surplus and agents' welfare.

econ.TH↗