Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/147873
Authors: 
Elias, Julio
Lacetera, Nicola
Macis, Mario
Year of Publication: 
2016
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers 10187
Abstract: 
Societies prohibit many transactions considered morally repugnant, although potentially efficiency-enhancing. We conducted an online choice experiment to characterize preferences for the morality and efficiency of payments to kidney donors. Preferences were heterogeneous, ranging from deontological to strongly consequentialist; the median respondent would support payments by a public agency if they increased the annual kidney supply by six percentage points, and private transactions for a thirty percentage-point increase. Fairness concerns drive this difference. Our findings suggest that cost-benefit considerations affect the acceptance of morally controversial transactions, and imply that trial studies of the effects of payments would inform the public debate.
Subjects: 
repugnant transactions
efficiency
morality
markets
preferences
JEL: 
C91
D01
D63
D64
I11
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
2.47 MB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.