Fair Machine Learning Under Partial Compliance
  Typically, fair machine learning research focuses on a single decisionmaker
and assumes that the underlying population is stationary. However, many of the
critical domains motivating this work are characterized by competitive
marketplaces with many decisionmakers. Realistically, we might expect only a
subset of them to adopt any non-compulsory fairness-conscious policy, a
situation that political philosophers call partial compliance. This possibility
raises important questions: how does the strategic behavior of decision
subjects in partial compliance settings affect the allocation outcomes? If k%
of employers were to voluntarily adopt a fairness-promoting intervention,
should we expect k% progress (in aggregate) towards the benefits of universal
adoption, or will the dynamics of partial compliance wash out the hoped-for
benefits? How might adopting a global (versus local) perspective impact the
conclusions of an auditor? In this paper, we propose a simple model of an
employment market, leveraging simulation as a tool to explore the impact of
both interaction effects and incentive effects on outcomes and auditing
metrics. Our key findings are that at equilibrium: (1) partial compliance (k%
of employers) can result in far less than proportional (k%) progress towards
the full compliance outcomes; (2) the gap is more severe when fair employers
match global (vs local) statistics; (3) choices of local vs global statistics
can paint dramatically different pictures of the performance vis-a-vis fairness
desiderata of compliant versus non-compliant employers; and (4) partial
compliance to local parity measures can induce extreme segregation.
