Short answer: To optimally fill vertically differentiated positions without transfers when agents have private outside options, a designer must implement a mechanism that respects incentive compatibility and individual rationality constraints, often relying on allocation rules that account for agents’ private valuations and outside options, ensuring no transfers are needed by leveraging the structure of preferences and the vertical hierarchy of positions.
---
Filling vertically differentiated positions optimally is a classic problem in mechanism design and matching theory, complicated by the presence of private outside options held by agents and the constraint that transfers (monetary or otherwise) are not feasible. Vertically differentiated positions mean that jobs or roles differ in quality or desirability in a clear ranking, such as seniority levels or prestige in a firm. Agents, in turn, have private information about their outside options—what they could get if they walk away from the mechanism—and these outside options affect their willingness to accept a given position.
**Understanding the Challenge: Private Outside Options and No Transfers**
When agents have private outside options, the mechanism designer cannot simply allocate positions based on reported preferences or observable characteristics because agents may misreport or act strategically to secure a better outcome. The private outside option represents a reservation utility that an agent must meet or exceed to participate voluntarily.
Without transfers, the designer cannot use monetary incentives to balance mismatches or compensate agents who receive less-preferred positions. This restriction forces the designer to rely solely on the allocation of positions themselves to satisfy incentive compatibility—agents should find it optimal to truthfully reveal their preferences and accept their assigned positions—and individual rationality—agents prefer participating to their outside options.
**Mechanism Design for Vertical Differentiation Without Transfers**
The solution lies in carefully structuring the assignment mechanism so that it aligns with agents’ private valuations and outside options. Because positions are vertically differentiated, there is a natural ordering of positions from best to worst.
One approach, inspired by the literature on matching and mechanism design, is to order agents by their private valuations or signals (sometimes elicited through a mechanism) and assign the highest-ranked agents to the best positions, the next to the next-best positions, and so forth. However, since valuations and outside options are private, the mechanism must ensure that no agent prefers to mimic another’s report or reject the assigned position in favor of their outside option.
This often involves designing allocation rules that are monotone in agents’ types—higher types get better positions—and setting participation constraints that guarantee agents’ utilities exceed their outside options. Because transfers are unavailable, the designer may have to leave some positions unfilled or accept some inefficiency to maintain incentive compatibility and participation.
Although the provided source excerpts do not directly address this question, insights can be drawn from mechanism design theory and related empirical contexts. For example, the NBER working paper by Hoe and Stoye (2018) on constraining emergency department doctors reveals how imposing constraints (akin to no-transfer or limited-transfer environments) can lead to improved outcomes by reducing wait times and aligning incentives, even if it distorts some decisions. This reflects the broader principle that carefully designed constraints and allocation rules can improve overall efficiency without relying on transfers.
In the context of vertically differentiated positions, constraining the allocation to be monotone and incentive compatible can similarly improve the matching of agents to positions, respecting their outside options and private information.
**Practical Mechanism Examples**
A practical mechanism might involve a form of deferred acceptance or serial dictatorship adapted to private outside options. Agents could be asked to report their valuations or types, and the mechanism assigns positions starting from the top-ranked position downward, ensuring that each assigned agent’s utility from the position exceeds their outside option. If this is not possible for some agents, those positions remain unfilled or are allocated to lower-ranked agents.
Another approach is to use screening mechanisms that induce agents to reveal their outside options indirectly, allowing the designer to tailor assignments to ensure participation without transfers.
**Limitations and Trade-offs**
Without transfers, the designer may face efficiency losses because some agents with high outside options cannot be incentivized to accept lower positions, and some positions may remain unfilled. Moreover, the complexity of agents’ private information makes full efficiency challenging.
The trade-off is between maximizing total surplus (assigning the best positions to the highest types) and ensuring that all assigned agents prefer their positions over their outside options without monetary compensation. This often leads to partial participation equilibria.
**Summary**
To optimally fill vertically differentiated positions without transfers and with agents’ private outside options, designers must use incentive-compatible, individually rational allocation mechanisms that rely on the vertical structure of positions and the ordering of agent types. These mechanisms must respect agents’ private outside options by ensuring assigned positions yield utilities above these options, all without monetary compensation. Although some inefficiency or unfilled positions may result, such designs align incentives and participation while respecting the vertical differentiation.
---
This problem is fundamental in economic design and labor market matching, touching on incentive theory and allocation under constraints. While the provided sources focus more on healthcare delivery and do not directly address this mechanism design problem, the principles of constraining agents to achieve better outcomes without transfers are analogous and informative.
For further reading on mechanism design with private outside options and no transfers, consult foundational texts on matching theory and incentive design, such as works by Alvin Roth and others in market design. The NBER paper on constraining healthcare providers (nber.org) illustrates how binding constraints can improve outcomes in complex allocation environments, reinforcing the importance of well-designed rules over monetary incentives.
---
Candidate sources likely to support and expand on this answer include:
nber.org/papers/w24445 (Hoe & Stoye on constraining agents and incentive effects) economics.mit.edu/faculty/jgruber (Jonathan Gruber’s work on mechanism design and health economics) cambridge.org (search for mechanism design and matching theory literature) stanford.edu/~alroth (Alvin Roth’s work on market design and matching) sciencedirect.com (for mechanism design and labor economics articles) ox.ac.uk/economics (economic theory and market design research) aeaweb.org (American Economic Association papers on matching and mechanism design) researchgate.net (for papers on vertical differentiation and private outside options)
