Repugnant Markets

Blogger Tim Harford got blogger

Virginia

Postrel, blogger Robin

Hanson, and a few non-bloggers such as the Bishop of Swindon to all talk

to him for a fascinating BBC radio documentary

on repugnant markets. Go read the transcript:

it’s great stuff. Among the topics covered: paying for someone’s kidney; the

right of dwarves to be paid to be tossed; life insurance; and prediction markets.

My favorite bit is where the Bishop of Swindon, Lee Rayfield – who’s

also a PhD in transplantation immunology – says that paying for kidneys

creates a "dehumanised society," while donating one altruistically

doesn’t. But Postrel, who famously donated a kidney herself, is far from sure

about that:

HARFORD: For people such as Bishop Rayfield, the essential difference between

a market and a kidney exchange is that the exchange preserves an altruistic

motive. But is it really true that the gift relationship is better than a

straightforward commercial transaction? Sometimes gifts can produce far more

onerous obligations than price-tags…

POSTREL: Knowing my particular friend, she would have really liked to do an

arm’s length transaction with a stranger where she paid somebody she

didn’t know because there can be a great deal of emotional entanglement

when there is a gift. It happens to be that I’m not the kind of person

to think that she owes me anything, but especially in families there are all

kinds of psychodramas that go on with requiring this to be a gift.

It’s effectively impossible to donate a kidney anonymously, and in today’s

society the best way of assuaging the psychodramas associated with saving someone’s

life is to turn the whole thing into a commercial transaction. I wonder what

Lee Rayfield would think if I donated a kidney in return for a large donation

to a charity of my choice?

This entry was posted in economics. Bookmark the permalink.