IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijsepp/v35y2008i1-2p5-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing human organs: an application of contingent valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Alper Altinanahtar
  • John R. Crooker
  • Jamie B. Kruse

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to estimate a supply response to monetary incentives to donate organs using a survey based on Adams, Barnett and Kaserman. Design/methodology/approach - The paper uses bootstrap techniques to estimate the characteristics of individuals and their willingness to accept monetary compensation for an organ donation commitment. It uses the estimates to fuel a simulation that examines the relationship between a market‐clearing price and the usability rate. The usability rate is the proportion of deaths that result in tissues that are viable for transplant. Findings - By analyzing the relationship between usability rate and market‐clearing price, the paper identifies three important ranges. When the usability rate is about 5 percent, a donation‐only system (zero price) should clear the market. At a usability rate between 2 and 5 percent, modest monetary incentives can attract a supply response that will clear the market. When the usability rate is less than 2 percent, supply becomes sufficiently inelastic so that even large monetary incentives will not solve the shortage problem. Practical implications - If the market mechanism were capable of yielding a greater number of organs for transplantation than the current system, then its adoption would save numerous lives and significantly reduce the cost of treating a variety of serious diseases. Also, it is useful in a benefit‐cost analysis framework designed to measure the social value of refinements in the coordination system. Originality/value - By relating the market‐clearing price of organs to their usability rates, this paper draws attention on the importance of interdisciplinary studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Alper Altinanahtar & John R. Crooker & Jamie B. Kruse, 2008. "Valuing human organs: an application of contingent valuation," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(1/2), pages 5-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijsepp:v:35:y:2008:i:1/2:p:5-14
    DOI: 10.1108/03068290810843800
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068290810843800/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068290810843800/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/03068290810843800?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Jon Diesel, 2010. "Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Organ Liberalization?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 7(3), pages 320-336, September.

    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:eme:ijsepp:v:35:y:2008:i:1/2:p:5-14. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.