Valuing human organs: an application of contingent valuation

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.

White Students’ Perceptions of the Costs and Consequences of Being Black

“…Although the CVM was created to provide a hypothetical marketplace in which to find the worth of environmental goods, variations of the approach have been used by researchers in other fields to provide estimates for such non-market intangibles as: the value of human life (Balmford et al, 2019 ), reductions in mortality risk (Alberini et al, 2006 ), human organs (Altinanahtar et al, 2008 ), mobility, cognition, vision, upper limb function (Lin et al, 2016 ), workplace safety (Gerking et al, 1988 ), life satisfaction/happiness (Seals, 2020 ), a non-restrictive diet (Soler & Borzykowski, 2020 ), and even a country’s success in Olympic competition (Funahashi et al, 2020 ; Wicker et al, 2012 ). More importantly for the current study, the method has also been used in at least two instances to assess the value of being white (Hacker, 1995 ; Mazzocco et al, 2006 ).…”