Volume 8, Issue 2 pp. 325-363
Open Access

Effective affirmative action in school choice

Isa E. Hafalir

Isa E. Hafalir

Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University; [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
M. Bumin Yenmez

M. Bumin Yenmez

Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University; [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Muhammed A. Yildirim

Muhammed A. Yildirim

Center for International Development, Harvard University; [email protected]

We thank the co-editor, Gadi Barlevy, and two anonymous referees, as well as Onur Kesten, Fuhito Kojima, Dimitar Simeonov, Tayfun Sönmez, and Alistair Wilson. We also thank seminar participants at Bilkent University, California Institute of Technology, Tepper School of Business, University of Maryland, and University of Montreal.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 16 May 2013
Citations: 193

Abstract

The prevalent affirmative action policy in school choice limits the number of admitted majority students to give minority students higher chances to attend their desired schools. There have been numerous efforts to reconcile affirmative action policies with celebrated matching mechanisms such as the deferred acceptance and top trading cycles algorithms. Nevertheless, it is theoretically shown that under these algorithms, the policy based on majority quotas may be detrimental to minorities. Using simulations, we find that this is a more common phenomenon rather than a peculiarity. To circumvent the inefficiency caused by majority quotas, we offer a different interpretation of the affirmative action policies based on minority reserves. With minority reserves, schools give higher priority to minority students up to the point that the minorities fill the reserves. We compare the welfare effects of these policies. The deferred acceptance algorithm with minority reserves Pareto dominates the one with majority quotas. Our simulations, which allow for correlations between student preferences and school priorities, indicate that minorities are, on average, better off with minority reserves while adverse effects on majorities are mitigated.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.