Advertisement

Eurasian Economic Review

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 1–36 | Cite as

A model of search and matching with PES intermediation

Original Paper
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

The paper is an extension of Morgan (A model of search, coordination and market segmentation. Department of Economics, SUNY-Buffalo Working paper, 1998). It shows that introducing a specialist matching intermediary, a public employment exchange, can improve the efficiency of the market under certain conditions. Coupled with search costs and incentive compatible lumpsum membership fees, agents participate in only one of the disjoint segments generated in such markets. A complete description is provided of the equilibrium matching of agents. In equilibrium, agents separate according to type into different segments viz., an informal economy, an economy operated by the intermediary, and an economy populated by relatively highly skilled agents only. Welfare properties of the equilibrium are provided.

keywords

Public employment service Assortative matching Intermediation Social welfare 

References

  1. Agrawal, M., Hariharan, G., Kishore, R., & Rao, H. R. (2004). Matching intermediaries for information goods in the presence of direct search: An examination of switching costs and obsolescence of information. Decision Support Systems, 41, 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atakan, A. E. (1999). Assortative matching with explicit search costs. Econometrica, 74(3), 667–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Autor, D. H. (2009). Studies of Labor Market Intermediation (pp. 1–23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G. (1973). Theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G. (1974). Theory of marriage: Part II. Journal of Political Economy, 82, S11–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bester, H. (1988). Bargaining, search costs and equilibrium price distributions. Review of Economic Studies, 55, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binmore, K. G., & Herrero, M. J. (1988). Matching and bargaining in dynamic markets. Review of Economic Studies, 55(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloch, F., & Ryder, H. (1987). Matching, search and bargaining. Journal of Economic Theory, 42, 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloch, F., & Ryder, H. (2000). Two sided search, marriages and matchmakers. International Economic Review, 41(1), 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burani, N. (2008). Matching, search and intermediation with two-sided heterogeneity. Review of Economic Design, 12(2), 75–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burdett, K., & Coles, M. G. (1997). Marriage and class. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(1), 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carrillo, P. E. (2005). An empirical two-sided equilibrium search model of the real estate market, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  13. Chade, H. (1995). Two sided search with heterogeneous agents. mimeo, Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  14. Chade, H. (2001). Two-sided search and perfect segregation with fixed search costs. Mathematical Social Sciences, 42, 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chatterjee, T. (2015). Public employment exchange in India: A report. mimeo, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, D., & Holt, C. (1994). An experimental examination of the diamond paradox. Working paper, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  17. Davos-Klosters, S. (2014). Matching skills and labour market needs. World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Employment, 12.Google Scholar
  18. Diamond, P. (1971). A model of price adjustment. Journal of Economic Theory, 3, 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diamond, P. A., & Maskin, E. (1981). An equilibrium analysis of search and breach of contract II. A non-steady state example. Journal of Economic Theory, 25(2), 165–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diamond, P. (1982). Wage determination and efficiency in search equilibrium. Review of Economic Studies, 49(2), 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fougère, D., Pradel, J., & Roger, M. (2005). Does job-search assistance affect search effort and outcomes? A microeconometric analysis of public versus private search methods. Institute for the Study of Labor, IZA DP No. 1825.Google Scholar
  22. Gale, D., & Shapley, L. S. (1962). College admissions and the stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly, 69(1), 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gehrig, T. (1993). Intermediation in search markets. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 2(1), 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Han, L., & Strange, W. C. (2015). The microstructure of housing markets: Search, bargaining, and brokerage. In G. Duranton, V. Henderson, & W. Strange (Eds.) Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 5, pp. 813–886). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444595317000132.
  25. Kubler, D. (1999). Coexistence of public and private job agencies: Screening with heterogenous institutions. Public Choice, 101(1/2), 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larsen, C. A., & Vesan, P. (2012). Why public employment services always fail. Public Administration, 90(2), 446–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lockwood, B. (1986). Transferable skills, job matching, and the efficiency of the ‘natural’ rate of unemployment. Economic Journal, 96, 961–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loertscher, S., & Niedermayer, A. (2008a). Fee setting intermediaries: On real estate agents, stock brokers, and auction houses. Discussion Papers, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.Google Scholar
  29. Loertscher, S., & Niedermayer, A. (2008b). Fee setting intermediaries: On real estate agents, stock brokers, and auction houses. Discussion papers from Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.Google Scholar
  30. Lu, X., & McAfee, P. R. (1996). Matching and expectations in a market with heterogenous agents. In M. Bay (Ed.) Advances in Applied Micro-Economics (Vol. 6, pp. 121–156). London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  31. MacNamara, J., & Collins, E. (1990). The job search problem as an employer-candidate game. Journal of Applied Probability, 28, 815–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mckenna, C. (1987). Labour market participation in matching equilibrium. Economica, 54, 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McMillan, J., & Rothschild, M. (1994). Search theory. In R. J. Aumann, S. Hart (Eds.) Handbook of game theory with economic applications (Vol. 2). North Holland: Elsevier Science B.V.Google Scholar
  34. Morgan, P. B. (1995). Two sided search and matching. mimeo, Department of Economics, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
  35. Morgan, P. B. (1998). A model of search, coordination and market segmentation. Department of Economics, SUNY-Buffalo Working paper.Google Scholar
  36. Mortensen, D. (1982). The matching process as a noncooperative bargaining game. In J. J. McCall (Ed.), The economics of information and uncertainty. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nungsari, M. (2014). Searching for yourself: A model of pricing on a two-sided matching platform with horizontally-differentiated agents (Vol. 12). The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  38. OECD Employment Outlook (2005). Public employment services: Managing performance. ISBN 92-64-01045-9.Google Scholar
  39. Pissarides, C. (1971). Equilibrium unemployment theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Roth, A., & Sotomayor, M. (1990). Two-sided matching: A study in game-theoretic modelling and analysis. Econometric society monograph no. 18. New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rubinstein, A. (1985a). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rubinstein, A. (1985b). Equilibrium in a market with sequential bargaining. Econometrica, 53, 1133–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rubinstein, A., & Wolinsky, A. (1987). Middlemen. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, 581–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rust, J., & Hall, G. (2003). Middlemen versus market makers: A theory of competitive exchange. Journal of Political Economy, 111(2), 353–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sattinger, M. (1993). Assignment models of the distribution of earnings. Journal of Economic Literature, 31, 831–880.Google Scholar
  46. Shimer, R., & Smith, L. (2000). Assortative matching and search. Econometrica, 68(2), 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, L. (1995). Cross-sectional dynamics in a two-sided matching model. MIT, Department of Economics mimeo 95-14.Google Scholar
  48. Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. The Journal of Political Economy, 69(3), 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stigler, G. J. (1962). Information in the labor market. The Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 94–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vera, C. P. (2014). A quasi-experimental evaluation of the public employment service: Evidence from Perù. mimeo, Zirve University.Google Scholar
  51. Wooders, J. (1994). Bargaining and matching in small markets. Working Paper 94-56.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Eurasia Business and Economics Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at Buffalo, SUNYBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations