Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp017s75dg424
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNeilson, Christopher-
dc.contributor.authorKarnani, Mohit-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-21T20:52:22Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-21T20:52:22Z-
dc.date.issued2020-10-
dc.identifier.urihttp://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp017s75dg424-
dc.description.abstractIn many settings, market designers must contend with the presence of ﬁrms who participate in the broader game surrounding a market but do not participate in the portion under the designer’s control. In this paper, we study the empirical relevance of the conﬁguration of on- and off-platform options in the context of a centralized college-major choice system. We quantify signiﬁcant negative externalities generated by off-platform options and measure the aftermarket frictions that contribute to generating them in practice. Our empirical application uses administrative data from the centralized assignment system for higher education in Chile and leverages a recent policy change that increased the number of on-platform slots by approximately 40%. We ﬁrst present a policy analysis which shows that expanding the centralized platform leads students to start college sooner and raises the share of students who graduate within six years. We develop an empirical model of college applications, after market waitlists, and matriculation choices. We estimate the model using students’ ranked-ordered applications, on- and off-platform enrollment, and on-time graduation outcomes. We use the estimated model to quantify welfare impacts, decompose different mechanisms and to conduct counterfactual exercises. We ﬁnd that when more programs are available on the centralized platform, welfare increases substantially. These externalities are driven by students who receive and decline on-platform offers, and are ampliﬁed by substantial frictions in waitlists. Our results indicate that expanding the scope of a higher education platform can have real impacts on welfare and human capital. Importantly, the effects are larger for students from lower SES backgrounds, suggesting the design of platforms can have effects on both efﬁciency and equity.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries635a-
dc.titleAftermarket Frictions and the Cost of Off-Platform Options in Centralized Assignment Mechanismsen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
Appears in Collections:IRS Working Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat