Last week I had a great “reunion” with Joe Miller and Christian Turner taping the latest episode of their Oral Argument podcast. I first appeared on Oral Argument (which was also my first podcast ever) back in episode 17 (“Fleshlist”), which Christian and Joe reminded me was WAAAYY back in 2014. Wow, that seems like last year, not five years ago! But congrats to Christian and Joe for their staying power!
As always, Joe and Christian were incredibly thoughtful, entertaining, and imaginative, taking the discussion to places I couldn’t anticipate even if I tried – make sure to listen to the end so that you can catch our discussion about drinking your own spit from a glass (yuck!).
One of the things that occurred to me, as we discussed the research I’ve been doing the last few years, is how lucky I am to have found collaborators who share my interest in taboo trades and who are much smarter than me! So, thank you, academic gods, for the wonderful co-authors you’ve sent my way.
Here’s their description of “Repugnance”, Episode 189:
Kim Krawiec rejoins us to discuss "repugnant" transactions. One common target of this adjective is trade in human body parts. While on the one hand making more matching kidneys available saves lives and prevents large amounts of suffering, on the other hand revulsion and concerns about coercion and distributive fairness arise when kidneys are bought and paid for. In recent years, a number of innovative market designs have allowed strangers to exchange kidneys without engaging in impersonal, commodified market transactions. And now there have been several global examples of such exchanges, transferring not only kidneys but also the resources needed to perform transplants in poor countries. But are these alternative designs still "markets," and what exactly is our problem with markets in kidneys anyway?
As always, the episode notes contain a wealth of information and useful links to books and articles we discussed, but I’ll add a few additional links below, for those interested in really indulging their taste for repugnant transactions and following the debate about Global Kidney Exchange.
On Global Kidney Exchange
Rees MA, Dunn TB, Kuhr CS, Marsh CL, Rogers J, Rees SE, Cicero A, Reece LJ, Roth AE, Ekwenna O, Fumo DE, Krawiec KD, Kopke JE, Jain S, Tan M, & Paloyo SR. Kidney Exchange to Overcome Financial Barriers to Kidney Transplantation. Am J Transplant 2017; 17: 782–790
Krawiec, Kimberly D., and Michael A. Rees. "Reverse transplant tourism." Law & Contemp. Probs. 77 (2014): 145.
Bozek, Danielle N., et al. "Complete Chain of the First Global Kidney Exchange Transplant and 3-yr Follow-up." European urology focus 4.2 (2018): 190-197.
Roth, A. E., Krawiec, K. D., Paloyo, S., Ekwenna, O., Marsh, C. L., Wenig, A. J., ... & Rees, M. A. (2017). People should not be banned from transplantation only because of their country of origin. American Journal of Transplantation, 17(10), 2747-2748.
Rees, M. A., Paloyo, S. R., Roth, A. E., Krawiec, K. D., Ekwenna, O., Marsh, C. L., ... & Dunn, T. B. (2017). Global kidney exchange: Financially incompatible pairs are not transplantable compatible pairs. American Journal of Transplantation, 17(10), 2743-2744.
On Repugnance
Roth, Alvin E. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets." Journal of Economic perspectives 21.3 (2007): 37-58.
Roth, Alvin E. Who Gets What—and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2015.
Healy, Kieran, and Kimberly D. Krawiec. "Repugnance Management and Transactions in the Body." American Economic Review 107.5 (2017): 86-90.
Healy, Kieran, and Kimberly D. Krawiec. "Organ Entrepreneurs." (2017).
Krawiec, Kimberly D. "Kidneys without Money." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE (2018).
Cohen, I. Glenn, On Repugnance, Distribution, and the Global Kidney Exchange: Comment on Kidneys without Money by Kimberly D. Krawiec.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE (2018).
Lübbe, Weyma , Understanding (one's own) Repugnances: Comment on “Kidneys without Money” by Kimberly D. Krawiec.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE (2018).
Comments