IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wrk/warwec/1381.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Field Study of Donor Behavior in the Iranian Kidney Market

Author

Listed:
  • Moghaddasi Kelishomi, Ali

    (Loughborough University)

  • Sgroi, Daniel

    (University of Warwick, ESRC CAGE Centre & IZA Bonn)

Abstract

Iran has the world’s only government-regulated kidney market, in which around 1000 individuals go through live kidney-removal surgery annually. We report the results of the first field study of donor behavior in this unique and controversial market. Those who enter the market have low income, typically entering to raise funds. They have lower risk tolerance and higher patience levels than the Iranian average. There is no di erence in rationality from population averages. There is evidence of altruism among participants. This might shed light on the sort of people likely to participate if other nations were to operate such markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Moghaddasi Kelishomi, Ali & Sgroi, Daniel, 2021. "A Field Study of Donor Behavior in the Iranian Kidney Market," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1381, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:wrk:warwec:1381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/2021/twerp_1381_-_sgroi.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Syngjoo Choi & Shachar Kariv & Wieland M?ller & Dan Silverman, 2014. "Who Is (More) Rational?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(6), pages 1518-1550, June.
    2. , & , E., 2014. "Free riding and participation in large scale, multi-hospital kidney exchange," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    3. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    5. 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.
    6. Dan Yamin & Arieh Gavious, 2013. "Incentives' Effect in Influenza Vaccination Policy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(12), pages 2667-2686, December.
    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. Moghaddasi Kelishomi, Ali & Sgroi, Daniel, 2022. "Cognitive ability and risk preferences in a developing nation: Findings from the field," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 216(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. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    2. Uttara Balakrishnan & Johannes Haushofer & Pamela Jakiela, 2020. "How soon is now? Evidence of present bias from convex time budget experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 294-321, June.
    3. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Durand, Antoine & Faure, Corinne, 2023. "Beyond energy efficiency: Do consumers care about life-cycle properties of household appliances?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    5. Thomas Epper & Ernst Fehr & Helga Fehr-Duda & Claus Thustrup Kreiner & David Dreyer Lassen & Søren Leth-Petersen & Gregers Nytoft Rasmussen, 2020. "Time Discounting and Wealth Inequality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1177-1205, April.
    6. Preuss, Malte, 2021. "Intra-individual stability of two survey measures on forward-looking attitude," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 201-227.
    7. Francesco D’Acunto & Daniel Hoang & Maritta Paloviita & Michael Weber, 2023. "IQ, Expectations, and Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(5), pages 2292-2325.
    8. Katharina Werner, 2019. "The Role of Information for Public Preferences on Education – Evidence from Representative Survey Experiments," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 82.
    9. Heckman, James J. & Jagelka, Tomáš & Kautz, Tim, 2019. "Some Contributions of Economics to the Study of Personality," IZA Discussion Papers 12753, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Daniel Horn & Hubert Kiss Janos & Sára Khayouti, 2020. "Does trust associate with political regime?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2013, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    11. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Alger, Ingela, 2021. "On the evolution of male competitiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 228-254.
    13. Gutmann, Jerg & Metelska-Szaniawska, Katarzyna & Voigt, Stefan, 2024. "Leader characteristics and constitutional compliance," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    14. Rintaro Yamaguchi, 2019. "Intergenerational Discounting with Intragenerational Inequality in Consumption and the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 957-972, August.
    15. Svetlana Abramova & Rainer Böhme & Helmut Elsinger & Helmut Stix & Martin Summer, 2022. "What can CBDC designers learn from asking potential users? Results from a survey of Austrian residents (Svetlana Abramova, Rainer Böhme, Helmut Elsinger, Helmut Stix, Martin Summer)," Working Papers 241, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank).
    16. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Paul Pelzl & Steven Poelhekke, 2023. "Democratization, leader education and growth: firm-level evidence from Indonesia," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 571-600, December.
    18. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Rozo, Sandra, 2021. "How Does it Feel to Be Part of the Minority?: Impacts of Perspective Taking on Prosocial Behavior," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 11599, Inter-American Development Bank.
    19. Kesternich, Iris & Schumacher, Heiner & Siflinger, Bettina & Valder, Franziska, 2022. "Reservation wages and labor supply," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 583-607.
    20. Carvajal, Daniel & Franco, Catalina & Isaksson, Siri, 2024. "Will Artificial Intelligence Get in the Way of Achieving Gender Equality?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 3/2024, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 05 Aug 2024.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    kidney donation ; Iranian kidney market ; risk ; patience ; rationality ; altruism ; generalized axiom of revealed preference ; field experiment JEL Classification: I11 ; I12 ; I18 ; C93 ; D03;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    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:wrk:warwec:1381. 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: Margaret Nash (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaruk.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.