IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v109y2019i8p2855-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Julio J. Elías
  • Nicola Lacetera
  • Mario Macis

Abstract

We conducted a randomized survey with 2,666 US residents to study preferences for legalizing payments to kidney donors. We found strong polarization, with many participants supporting or opposing payments regardless of potential transplant gains. However, about 18 percent of respondents would switch to favoring payments for sufficiently large increases in transplants. Preferences for compensation have strong moral foundations; participants especially reject direct payments by patients, which they find would violate principles of fairness. We corroborate the interpretation of our findings with a choice experiment of a costly decision to donate money to a foundation that supports donor compensation.

Suggested Citation

  • Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:109:y:2019:i:8:p:2855-88
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/aer.20180568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/aer.20180568
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/aer.20180568.data
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/aer.20180568.appx
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/aer.20180568.ds
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Alesina & P. Giuliano., 2016. "Culture and institutions," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 10.
    2. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3357-3376, December.
    3. Wagner, Alfred, 1891. "Marshall's Principles of Economics," History of Economic Thought Articles, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, vol. 5, pages 319-338.
    4. Marina Agranov & Pietro Ortoleva, 2017. "Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 40-68.
    5. Daniel J. Benjamin & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Nichole Szembrot, 2014. "Beyond Happiness and Satisfaction: Toward Well-Being Indices Based on Stated Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(9), pages 2698-2735, September.
    6. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    7. Smith, Adam, 1759. "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number smith1759.
    8. 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.
    9. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    10. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    11. Sandro Ambuehl & Muriel Niederle & Alvin E. Roth, 2015. "More Money, More Problems? Can High Pay Be Coercive and Repugnant?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 357-360, May.
    12. Roth, Alvin E. & Leider, Stephen, 2010. "Kidneys For Sale: Who Disapproves, and Why?," Scholarly Articles 5128483, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    13. Luigi Guiso & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2006. "Does Culture Affect Economic Outcomes?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 23-48, Spring.
    14. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    15. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    16. Roland Bénabou & Davide Ticchi & Andrea Vindigni, 2022. "Forbidden Fruits: The Political Economy of Science, Religion, and Growth [Economic Backwardness in Political Perspective]," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 89(4), pages 1785-1832.
    17. A Falk & T Neuber & N Szech, 2020. "Diffusion of Being Pivotal and Immoral Outcomes," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 87(5), pages 2205-2229.
    18. Alvin E. Roth, 2007. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 37-58, Summer.
    19. Daniel J. Benjamin & James J. Choi & Geoffrey Fisher, 2016. "Religious Identity and Economic Behavior," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(4), pages 617-637, October.
    20. Benabou, Roland & Falk, Armin & Tirole, Jean, 2018. "Narratives, Imperatives, and Moral Reasoning," IZA Discussion Papers 11665, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    21. César Martinelli & Susan W. Parker & Ana Cristina Pérez-Gea & Rodimiro Rodrigo, 2018. "Cheating and Incentives: Learning from a Policy Experiment," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 298-325, February.
    22. Björn Bartling & Roberto A. Weber & Lan Yao, 2015. "Do Markets Erode Social Responsibility?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 130(1), pages 219-266.
    23. Roland Benabou & Jean Tirole, 2009. "Over My Dead Body: Bargaining and the Price of Dignity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 459-465, May.
    24. Brian A. Jacob & Steven D. Levitt, 2003. "Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(3), pages 843-877.
    25. Leonardo Bursztyn & Georgy Egorov & Stefano Fiorin, 2017. "From Extreme to Mainstream: How Social Norms Unravel," NBER Working Papers 23415, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    26. Alberto Alesina & Stefanie Stantcheva & Edoardo Teso, 2018. "Intergenerational Mobility and Preferences for Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(2), pages 521-554, February.
    27. 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.
    28. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2011. "Identity, Morals, and Taboos: Beliefs as Assets," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(2), pages 805-855.
    29. Kaushik Basu, 2007. "Coercion, contract and the limits of the market," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(4), pages 559-579, December.
    30. Andrei Shleifer, 2004. "Does Competition Destroy Ethical Behavior?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 414-418, May.
    31. Sen, Amaryta, 1999. "On Ethics and Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195627619, November.
    32. Daniel J. Benjamin & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Alex Rees-Jones, 2012. "What Do You Think Would Make You Happier? What Do You Think You Would Choose?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2083-2110, August.
    33. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    34. Björn Bartling & Yagiz Özdemir, 2017. "The Limits to Moral Erosion in Markets: Social Norms and the Replacement Excuse," CESifo Working Paper Series 6696, CESifo.
    35. Daniel J. Benjamin & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Alex Rees-Jones, 2014. "Can Marginal Rates of Substitution Be Inferred from Happiness Data? Evidence from Residency Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(11), pages 3498-3528, November.
    36. George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2000. "Economics and Identity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(3), pages 715-753.
    37. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    38. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    39. Scott Cunningham & Manisha Shah, 2018. "Decriminalizing Indoor Prostitution: Implications for Sexual Violence and Public Health," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 1683-1715.
    40. Rajna Gibson & Carmen Tanner & Alexander F. Wagner, 2013. "Preferences for Truthfulness: Heterogeneity among and within Individuals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 532-548, February.
    41. repec:hrv:faseco:30829771 is not listed on IDEAS
    42. Satz, Debra, 2010. "Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195311594, November.
    43. Avraham Stoler & Judd B. Kessler & Tamar Ashkenazi & Alvin E. Roth & Jacob Lavee, 2017. "Incentivizing Organ Donor Registrations with Organ Allocation Priority," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(4), pages 500-510, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 19th August 2019
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2019-08-19 11:00:02

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Riehm, Tobias & Fugger, Nicolas & Gillen, Philippe & Gretschko, Vitali & Werner, Peter, 2022. "Social norms, sanctions, and conditional entry in markets with externalities: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. Johanna Catherine Maclean & John Buckell, 2021. "Information and sin goods: Experimental evidence on cigarettes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 289-310, February.
    4. Zawojska, Ewa & Gastineau, Pascal & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Cheze, Benoit & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Measuring policy consequentiality perceptions in stated preference surveys," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313977, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Pappalardo, Gioacchino & West, Grant Howard & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Toscano, Sabrina & Pecorino, Biagio, 2022. "The effect of a UNESCO world heritage site designation on willingness to pay to preserve an agri-environmental good: The case of the dry stone walls in Mt. Etna," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Pham, Vinh, 2021. "Cash, Funeral Benefits or Nothing at All: How to Incentivize Family Consent for Organ Donation," MPRA Paper 111047, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Vinh Pham, 2021. "Cash, Funeral Benefits or Nothing at All: How to Incentivize Family Consent for Organ Donation," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 8(2), pages 147-192, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Deniz Dutz & Ingrid Huitfeldt & Santiago Lacouture & Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Winnie van Dijk, 2021. "Selection in Surveys," NBER Working Papers 29549, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
      • Deniz Dutz & Ingrid Huitfeldt & Santiago Lacouture & Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Winnie van Dijk, 2021. "Selection in Surveys," Discussion Papers 971, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    11. Viola S. Ackfeld, 2020. "The Aversion to Monetary Incentives for Changing Behavior," Working Paper Series in Economics 100, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    12. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    13. Karen Evelyn Hauge & Snorre Kverndokk & Andreas Lange, 2021. "Why People Oppose Trade Institutions - On Morality, Fairness and Risky Actions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9456, CESifo.
    14. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    15. Ola Andersson & Pol Campos‐Mercade & Fredrik Carlsson & Florian H. Schneider & Erik Wengström, 2022. "The impact of stay‐at‐home policies on individual welfare," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(2), pages 340-362, April.
    16. 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).
    17. Vecchi, Martina & Jaenicke, Edward C., 2021. "Local food in times of crisis: the impact of Covid-19 and two reinforcing primes," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313958, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi & 横尾, 英史, 2020. "Ethics of randomized field experiments: Evidence from a randomized survey experiment," Discussion Papers 2020-07, Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.
    19. Riehm, Tobias & Fugger, Nicolas & Gillen, Philippe & Gretschko, Vitali & Werner, Peter, 2021. "Social norms and market behavior: Evidence from a large population sample," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-017, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Martina Vecchi & Edward C. Jaenicke & Claudia Schmidt, 2022. "Local food in times of crisis: The impact of COVID‐19 and two reinforcing primes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(4), pages 850-873, October.
    21. Kübler, Dorothea & Erkut, Hande, 2022. "Repugnant Transactions: The Role of Agency and Extreme Consequences," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264052, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    22. Bruijn, L. Michelle & Ribas, Rafael P., 2022. "“No drugs in my back yard:” The ambivalent reception of cannabis retailers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 103-121.

    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. Elias, Julio & Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2016. "Efficiency-Morality Trade-Offs in Repugnant Transactions: A Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 10187, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Marie Claire Villeval, 2019. "Comportements (non) éthiques et stratégies morales," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 70(6), pages 1021-1046.
    3. Julio Elias & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2017. "Understanding repugnance: Implications for public policy," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 614, Universidad del CEMA.
    4. Nicola Lacetera, 2016. "Incentives and Ethics in the Economics of Body Parts," NBER Working Papers 22673, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Sandro Ambuehl, 2017. "An Offer You Can't Refuse? Testing Undue Inducement," CESifo Working Paper Series 6296, CESifo.
    6. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Paola Salardi, 2017. "Economic Development and the Regulation of Morally Contentious Activities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 76-80, May.
    7. Julio J. Elias & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2015. "Sacred Values? The Effect of Information on Attitudes toward Payments for Human Organs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 361-365, May.
    8. Anna Gunnthorsdottir & Douglas A. Norton, 2018. "Introduction to Experimental Economics and Culture," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 1-24, Emerald Publishing Ltd.
    9. 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.
    10. Kim, Jaehong & Li, Mengling & Xu, Menghan, 2021. "Organ donation with vouchers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    11. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2018. "Equity Concerns are Narrowly Framed," NBER Working Papers 25326, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Diaz, Lina & Houser, Daniel & Ifcher, John & Zarghamee, Homa, 2021. "Estimating Social Preferences Using Stated Satisfaction: Novel Support for Inequity Aversion," IZA Discussion Papers 14347, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Gneezy, Uri & Saccardo, Silvia & Serra-Garcia, Marta & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2020. "Bribing the Self," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 311-324.
    14. Michael A. Clemens, 2018. "Testing for Repugnance in Economic Transactions: Evidence from Guest Work in the Gulf," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(S1), pages 5-44.
    15. Benistant, Julien & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Unethical behavior and group identity in contests," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 128-155.
    16. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2020. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," CEBI working paper series 20-20, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    17. Ingvild Almås & Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden, 2020. "Cutthroat Capitalism versus Cuddly Socialism: Are Americans More Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking than Scandinavians?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1753-1788.
    18. Nicola Maaser & Thomas Stratmann, 2021. "Costly Voting in Weighted Committees: The case of moral costs," Economics Working Papers 2021-11, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    19. Karen Evelyn Hauge & Snorre Kverndokk & Andreas Lange, 2021. "Why People Oppose Trade Institutions - On Morality, Fairness and Risky Actions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9456, CESifo.
    20. Philip J Held & Frank McCormick & Glenn M Chertow & Thomas G Peters & John P Roberts, 2018. "Would government compensation of living kidney donors exploit the poor? An empirical analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets

    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:aea:aecrev:v:109:y:2019:i:8:p:2855-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.