The Importance of Irrelevance of Rejected Contracts in Matching under Weakened Substitutes Conditions

摘要: We show that Hatfield and Kojima (2010) inherits a critical ambiguity from its predecessor Milgrom (2005), clearing this has strong implications for the paper. Of two potential remedies, first one results in failure of all theorems except absence an additional irrelevance rejected contracts (IRC) condition, whereas second remedy eliminates transparency results, reduces scope model, contradicts authors' interpretation nature their contributions. Fortunately are restored when IRC is explicitly assumed under remedy.