arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2311.07920

Strategic Waiting in Centralized Matching: Daycare Assignment

Abstract

In centralized assignment mechanisms, unassigned participants are often placed on waitlists to improve their chances in future rounds. However, I demonstrate that this practice may bring unintended welfare consequences on the participants, using data from the Japanese daycare system. The prioritization of waitlisted applicants introduces a dynamic incentive for applicants to manipulate their priority by strategically choosing to be waitlisted to secure positions at more selective daycares. I show that 30.0% of applicants do not list safety options when they initially apply and that those who benefit from additional priority are 8.1 percentage points more likely to avoid listing safety options than those who do not. Given the prevalence of such strategic waiting, I estimate a structural model of daycare choice that extends Agarwal and Somaini (2018) to a two-period model allowing for reapplication. By simulating a scenario without waitlist priority, I find that the current priority functions as a redistributive mechanism: through its abolition, early starters (age 0) experience a 34.1% decrease in welfare and a 1.7 percentage point increase in the likelihood of being waitlisted, whereas late starters (age 1) experience a 29.0% increase in welfare and a 6.9 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of being waitlisted.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kan Kuno. 2025-01-04. Strategic Waiting in Centralized Matching: Daycare Assignment. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07920

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN