IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ehbiol/v29y2018icp128-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can we increase organ donation by reducing the disincentives? An experimental analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hawley, Zackary
  • Li, Danyang
  • Schnier, Kurt
  • Turgeon, Nicole

Abstract

Our research utilizes the experimental economics laboratory to investigate the impact that reducing disincentives has on organ donation. The experiment consists of four treatments across different levels of donation related costs, which reflect the disincentives associated with being an organ donor. Our experimental results indicate that sizable increases in the organ donation rate are achievable if we reduce the level of disincentives present. The largest observed donation rates arise when a financial return is offered for being an organ donor, which is prohibited under the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), but nearly 80% of the gains observed under the positive financial incentives can be achieved if all of the disincentives are eliminated.

Suggested Citation

  • Hawley, Zackary & Li, Danyang & Schnier, Kurt & Turgeon, Nicole, 2018. "Can we increase organ donation by reducing the disincentives? An experimental analysis," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 128-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:29:y:2018:i:c:p:128-137
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2018.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X17301855
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ehb.2018.03.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deck, Cary & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2013. "Do market incentives crowd out charitable giving?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 16-24.
    2. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2019. "How much priority bonus should be given to registered organ donors? An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 367-378.
    3. Gary S. Becker & Julio Jorge Elías, 2007. "Introducing Incentives in the Market for Live and Cadaveric Organ Donations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 3-24, Summer.
    4. Richard A. Epstein, 2008. "The Human and Economic Dimensions of Altruism: The Case of Organ Transplantation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(2), pages 459-501, June.
    5. Jean Tirole & Roland Bénabou, 2006. "Incentives and Prosocial Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1652-1678, December.
    6. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2016. "Organ donation in the lab: Preferences and votes on the priority rule," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 139-149.
    7. Cinyabuguma, Matthias & Page, Talbot & Putterman, Louis, 2005. "Cooperation under the threat of expulsion in a public goods experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1421-1435, August.
    8. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario & Stith, Sarah S., 2014. "Removing financial barriers to organ and bone marrow donation: The effect of leave and tax legislation in the U.S," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 43-56.
    9. Kurt E. Schnier & Robert M. Merion & Nicole Turgeon & David Howard, 2018. "Subsidizing Altruism In Living Organ Donation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 398-423, January.
    10. Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-1458, December.
    11. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    12. Alvin E. Roth, 2007. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 37-58, Summer.
    13. Li, Danyang & Hawley, Zackary & Schnier, Kurt, 2013. "Increasing organ donation via changes in the default choice or allocation rule," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1117-1129.
    14. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    15. Kessler, Judd B. & Roth, Alvin E., 2014. "Loopholes undermine donation: An experiment motivated by an organ donation priority loophole in Israel," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 19-28.
    16. Judd B. Kessler & Alvin E. Roth, 2012. "Organ Allocation Policy and the Decision to Donate," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2018-2047, August.
    17. Byrne, Margaret M. & Thompson, Peter, 2001. "A positive analysis of financial incentives for cadaveric organ donation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 69-83, January.
    18. Li, Danyang, 2016. "Effect of persuasive messages on organ donation decisions: An experimental test," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 150-159.
    19. A. Frank Adams Iii & A. H. Barnett & David L. Kaserman, 1999. "Markets For Organs: The Question Of Supply," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(2), pages 147-155, April.
    20. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Privately provided public goods in a large economy: The limits of altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 57-73, February.
    21. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2014. "Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1107-1129, May.
    22. Ahn, T.K. & Isaac, R. Mark & Salmon, Timothy C., 2009. "Coming and going: Experiments on endogenous group sizes for excludable public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-2), pages 336-351, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ben Brewer, 2020. "Click it or give it: Increased seat belt law enforcement and organ donation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1400-1421, November.
    2. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2019. "How much priority bonus should be given to registered organ donors? An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 367-378.
    3. Niu, Xiaofei & Li, Jianbiao, 2020. "Incentivizing organ donation by swearing an oath: The role of signature and ritual," EconStor Preprints 203243, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, revised 2020.
    4. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2018. "How much Priority Bonus Should be Given to Registered Donors? An Experimental Analysis," DICE Discussion Papers 306, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    5. Stith, Sarah S. & Li, Xiaoxue, 2021. "Does increasing access-to-care delay accessing of care? Evidence from kidney transplantation," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Niu, Xiaofei & Li, Jianbiao, 2020. "Incentivizing organ donation by swearing an oath: The role of signature and ritual," EconStor Preprints 203243, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, revised 2020.
    2. Li, Mengling & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Xu, Menghan, 2022. "Remedying adverse selection in donor-priority rule using freeze period: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 384-407.
    3. Kurt E. Schnier & Robert M. Merion & Nicole Turgeon & David Howard, 2018. "Subsidizing Altruism In Living Organ Donation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 398-423, January.
    4. Slonim, Robert & Wang, Carmen, 2016. "Market Design for Altruistic Supply: Evidence from the Lab," IZA Discussion Papers 9650, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Kessler, Judd B. & Roth, Alvin E., 2014. "Loopholes undermine donation: An experiment motivated by an organ donation priority loophole in Israel," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 19-28.
    6. Li, Mengling & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Xu, Menghan, 2023. "Prioritized organ allocation rules under compatibility constraints," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 403-427.
    7. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2019. "How much priority bonus should be given to registered organ donors? An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 367-378.
    8. Sun, Tianshu & Lu, Susan Feng & Jin, Ginger Zhe, 2016. "Solving shortage in a priceless market: Insights from blood donation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 149-165.
    9. Ackfeld, Viola & Ockenfels, Axel, 2021. "Do people intervene to make others behave prosocially?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 58-72.
    10. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario & Stith, Sarah S., 2014. "Removing financial barriers to organ and bone marrow donation: The effect of leave and tax legislation in the U.S," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 43-56.
    11. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2018. "How much Priority Bonus Should be Given to Registered Donors? An Experimental Analysis," DICE Discussion Papers 306, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    12. Tianshu Sun & Susan Feng Lu & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2015. "Solving Shortage in a Priceless Market: Insights from Blood Donation," NBER Working Papers 21312, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Kim, Jaehong & Li, Mengling & Xu, Menghan, 2021. "Organ donation with vouchers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Deb, Rahul & Gazzale, Robert S. & Kotchen, Matthew J., 2014. "Testing motives for charitable giving: A revealed-preference methodology with experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 181-192.
    15. Becker, Gary S. & Elias, Julio Jorge & Ye, Karen J., 2022. "The shortage of kidneys for transplant: Altruism, exchanges, opt in vs. opt out, and the market for kidneys," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 211-226.
    16. Herr, Annika & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2016. "Organ donation in the lab: Preferences and votes on the priority rule," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 139-149.
    17. Ekaterina Melnik & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 2015. "The We and the I: The Logic of Voluntary Associations," Working Papers halshs-01109609, HAL.
    18. Marc Daube & David Ulph, 2016. "Moral Behaviour, Altruism and Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 505-522, February.
    19. Fang, Xing, 2022. "Why we hide good deeds? The selfless and anonymous donation behavior in crowdfunding," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    20. Emel Filiz-Ozbay & Erkut Y. Ozbay, 2010. "Social Image in Public Goods Provision with Real Effort," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 1026, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Organ donation; Disincentives; Laboratory experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ehbiol:v:29:y:2018:i:c:p:128-137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622964 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.