IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/828.html

Injecting Adam Smith’s Ideas in the Market for Kidney Transplants

Author

Listed:
  • Walter Castro
  • Julio Elias

Abstract

Organs for transplantation are extremely valuable, and their shortage has become one of the most burning public policy issues in most countries with developed transplant programs. Could the kidney transplantation system benefit from an injection of Adam Smith's ideas? In this paper, we combine Adam Smith’s ideas of both The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations to analyze the main developments of the market for kidney transplantation, including kidney exchange, default rules for deceased donations (presumed consent versus informed consent), priority rules, and proposals to pay organ donors. Injecting Adam Smith’s ideas into this problem bring new insights in terms of public policy and market design. For instance, his theory of equalizing differences, exposed in Book I, Chapter X, of the Wealth of Nations, provide a base to estimate what would be the price of a kidney in a legal market (Becker and Elias 2007). His views about human decisions struggling between ‘passions’ and the ‘impartial spectator’ and on the difficulties of organizing the economic life appealing mainly to benevolence, and other sentiments toward close ones, are illuminating for policy design of any system of donation (paid, non-directed donations, or exchanges) by providing an understanding of what motivates people in the context of markets. Considering Adam Smith’s ideas, we also evaluate many restrictions currently in place in the market for kidney transplantations that impose severe limits on individual decisions, some of them to make up for a possible lack of self-command. We hope we show with our analysis not only the topicality of Smith´s ideas but the importance for the economic analysis of combining both the Theory of Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations, and not to consider them separately as isolated masterpieces.

Suggested Citation

  • Walter Castro & Julio Elias, 2022. "Injecting Adam Smith’s Ideas in the Market for Kidney Transplants," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 828, Universidad del CEMA.
    • Handle: RePEc:cem:doctra:828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ucema.edu.ar/publicaciones/download/documentos/828.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Mohammad Akbarpour & Julien Combe & YingHua He & Victor Hiller & Robert Shimer & Olivier Tercieux, 2025. "Unpaired Kidney Exchange: Overcoming Double Coincidence of Wants without Money," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 92(4), pages 2108-2164.
    3. Alvin E. Roth, 2007. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 37-58, Summer.
    4. 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.
    5. Coase, R H, 1977. "The Wealth of Nations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(3), pages 309-325, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. Slonim, Robert & Wang, Carmen, 2016. "Market Design for Altruistic Supply: Evidence from the Lab," IZA Discussion Papers 9650, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. 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.
    4. Kim, Jaehong & Li, Mengling & Xu, Menghan, 2021. "Organ donation with vouchers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2008. "Motivating Altruism: A Field Study," IZA Discussion Papers 3770, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    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. Mendoza, Roger Lee, 2010. "Kidney black markets and legal transplants: Are they opposite sides of the same coin?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 255-265, March.
    8. Alvin E. Roth, 2009. "What Have We Learned from Market Design?," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 79-112.
    9. 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.
    10. Nicolas Brisset, 2016. "Institutions as Emergent Phenomena: Redefining Downward Causation," Working Papers halshs-01425669, HAL.
    11. Mohammad Akbarpour & Julien Combe & YingHua He & Victor Hiller & Robert Shimer & Olivier Tercieux, 2025. "Unpaired Kidney Exchange: Overcoming Double Coincidence of Wants without Money," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 92(4), pages 2108-2164.
    12. Condorelli, Daniele, 2013. "Market and non-market mechanisms for the optimal allocation of scarce resources," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 582-591.
    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. Sandro Ambuehl & Axel Ockenfels, 2017. "The Ethics of Incentivizing the Uninformed: A Vignette Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 91-95, May.
    15. Snorre Kverndokk, 2013. "Moral positions on tradable permit markets," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 22, pages 490-499, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Stacy Dickert-Conlin & Todd Elder & Brian Moore, 2011. "Donorcycles: Motorcycle Helmet Laws and the Supply of Organ Donors," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(4), pages 907-935.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Marie Daou & Alain Marciano, 2022. "Commodification: The traditional pro-market arguments," Post-Print hal-03876907, HAL.
    20. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2011. "Rewarding Altruism? A Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 17636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cem:doctra:828. 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: Lucila Solla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemaaar.html .

    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.