2025-07-11 | | Total: 3
This paper studies matching markets where institutions are matched with possibly more than one individual. The matching market contains some couples who view the pair of jobs as complements. First, we show by means of an example that a stable matching may fail to exist even when both couples and institutions have responsive preferences. Next, we provide conditions on couples' preferences that are necessary and sufficient to ensure a stable matching for every preference profile where institutions may have any responsive preference. Finally, we do the same with respect to institutions' preferences, that is, we provide conditions on institutions' preferences that are necessary and sufficient to ensure a stable matching for every preference profile where couples may have any responsive preference.
We study many-to-one matching problems between institutions and individuals, where each institution may be matched to multiple individuals. The matching market includes couples, who view pairs of institutions as complementary. Institutions' preferences over sets of individuals are assumed to satisfy responsiveness, whereas couples' preferences over pairs of institutions may violate responsiveness. In this setting, we first assume that all institutions share a common preference ordering over individuals, and we establish: (i) a complete characterization of all couples' preference profiles for which a stable matching exists, under the additional assumption that couples violate responsiveness only to ensure co-location at the same institution, and (ii) a necessary and sufficient condition on the common institutional preference such that a stable matching exists when couples may violate responsiveness arbitrarily. Next, we relax the common preference assumption, requiring institutions to share a common ranking only over the members of each couple. Under this weaker assumption, we provide: (i) a complete characterization of all couples' preferences for which a stable matching exists, and (ii) a sufficient condition on individuals' preferences that guarantees the existence of a stable matching.
Which level of voting costs is optimal in a democracy? This paper argues that intermediate voting costs - what we term a "Midcost democracy" - should be avoided, as they fail to ensure that electoral outcomes reflect the preferences of the majority. We study a standard binary majority decision in which a majority of the electorate prefers alternative A over alternative B. The population consists of partisan voters, who always participate, and non-partisan voters, who vote only when they believe their participation could be pivotal, given that voting entails a cost. We show that the probability of the majority-preferred alternative A winning is non-monotonic in the level of voting costs. Specifically, when voting costs are either high or negligible, alternative A wins in all equilibria. However, at intermediate cost levels, this alignment breaks down. These findings suggest that democratic systems should avoid institutional arrangements that lead to moderate voting costs, as they may undermine the majority principle.