Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:58pm

Supplying Kidneys

A market that allows payment for human kidneys should be established on a trial basis to help extend the lives of patients with kidney disease.

Responses
 

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Source: IGM Economic Experts Panel
www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel
Participant University Vote Confidence Comment Bio/Vote History
Alesina Alberto Alesina Harvard Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Altonji Joseph Altonji Yale Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Auerbach Alan Auerbach Berkeley Uncertain 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Autor David Autor MIT No Opinion
Not enough info to answer. Not in favor of a kidney market that sells to highest bidder. Other ideas maybe. Question is not actionable.
Bio/Vote History
         
Banerjee Abhijit Banerjee MIT Disagree 8
That would mean valuing people's lives by their incomes. We already do that but moving further in that direction seems wrong.
Bio/Vote History
         
Bertrand Marianne Bertrand Chicago Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Brunnermeier Markus Brunnermeier Princeton Agree 6
It is important that the market is "well regulated" in order to avoid abuse and exploitation of the vulnerables.
Bio/Vote History
         
Chetty Raj Chetty Harvard Uncertain 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Chevalier Judith Chevalier Yale Strongly Agree 9
This certainly may have unintended consequences but it is hard to fault attempting to create more supply.
Bio/Vote History
         
Currie Janet Currie Princeton Uncertain 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Cutler David Cutler Harvard Strongly Disagree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Deaton Angus Deaton Princeton Strongly Disagree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Duffie Darrell Duffie Stanford Agree 3
Under strong governance that mitigates exploitation, this market may save lives on mutually consenting terms.
Bio/Vote History
         
Edlin Aaron Edlin Berkeley Uncertain 7
Dangerous ground, but a well-regulated experiment could be beneficial. Payments to fill out donor cards might increase supply, for example
Bio/Vote History
         
Eichengreen Barry Eichengreen Berkeley Uncertain 1
A market with or without subsidies for low income patients?
Bio/Vote History
         
Einav Liran Einav Stanford Strongly Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Fair Ray Fair Yale Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Finkelstein Amy Finkelstein MIT Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Goldberg Pinelopi Goldberg Yale Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Greenstone Michael Greenstone Chicago Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Hall Robert Hall Stanford Uncertain 9
Hard to know because we don't have much of an understanding of why people make organ gifts.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hart Oliver Hart Harvard Agree 8
I'd like to see it but I'm not sure the public is ready. Also would insurance cover this? Would people be able to top up (presumably)?
Bio/Vote History
         
Holmström Bengt Holmström MIT Disagree 5
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoxby Caroline Hoxby Stanford Uncertain 8
Would improve allocative efficiency but means- and health-conditioned vouchers would presumably have to be used to address ethical concerns.
Bio/Vote History
         
Hoynes Hilary Hoynes Berkeley Agree 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Judd Kenneth Judd Stanford Strongly Agree 10
There is no reason to block this voluntary exchange. There may be unique challenges in applying laws against fraud, but nothing too hard.
Bio/Vote History
         
Kaplan Steven Kaplan Chicago Uncertain 8
Bio/Vote History
         
Kashyap Anil Kashyap Chicago Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Klenow Pete Klenow Stanford Agree 3
Bio/Vote History
         
Levin Jonathan Levin Stanford Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Maskin Eric Maskin Harvard Agree 7
Bio/Vote History
         
Nordhaus William Nordhaus Yale Agree 5
Perhaps experiments in different regimes better idea.
Bio/Vote History
         
Obstfeld Maurice Obstfeld Berkeley Uncertain 1
Bio/Vote History
         
Saez Emmanuel Saez Berkeley Did Not Answer
Bio/Vote History
         
Samuelson Larry Samuelson Yale Disagree 6
We need to rationalize our organ allocation mechanism, but a market is not the only way, and is not obviously the best way.
Bio/Vote History
         
Scheinkman José Scheinkman Princeton Agree 6
Bio/Vote History
         
Schmalensee Richard Schmalensee MIT Uncertain 7
How to deal with donors who don't understand risks, increased incentives to steal & import, perceived inequities...? Not simple.
Bio/Vote History
         
Shapiro Carl Shapiro Berkeley Agree 8
Experiments seem valuable here, using health outcomes as our metric. Matching donors and recipients based in part on payment may be helpful.
Bio/Vote History
         
Shimer Robert Shimer Chicago Strongly Agree 7
The biggest impact would be to increase kidney supply, so few obvious losers from this policy
Bio/Vote History
         
Stokey Nancy Stokey Chicago Uncertain 1
It would surely save lives of those with kidney disease. It would probably have unintended consequences as well.
Bio/Vote History
         
Thaler Richard Thaler Chicago Uncertain 5
How should we incorporate the fact that nearly all non-economists hate this idea? Do we declare them wrong and proceed?
Bio/Vote History
         
Udry Christopher Udry Yale Strongly Agree 1
As an economist, I strongly agree that there would be tremendous gains. But I'm uncertain of the appropriate bounds on market transactions.
-see background information here
-see background information here
Bio/Vote History
         

10 New Economic Experts join the IGM Panel


For the past two years, our expert panelists have been informing the public about the extent to which economists agree or disagree on important public policy issues. This week, we are delighted to announce that we are expanding the IGM Economic Experts Panel to add ten new distinguished economists. Like our other experts, these new panelists have impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters, and their names will be familiar to other economists and the media.

To give the public a broad sense of their views on policy issues, each new expert has responded to a selection of 16 statements that our panel had previously addressed. We chose these 16 statements, which cover a wide range of important policy areas, because the original panelists' responses to them were analyzed in a paper comparing the views of our economic experts with those of the American public. You can find that paper, by Paola Sapienza and Luigi Zingales, here. The paper, along with other analyses of the experts' views, was discussed during the American Economic Association annual meetings, and the video can be found here.

The new panelists' responses to these statements can be seen on their individual voting history pages. Our ten new economic experts are:

Abhijit Banerjee (MIT)
Markus K. Brunnermeier (Princeton)
Liran Einav (Stanford)
Amy Finkelstein (MIT)
Oliver Hart (Harvard)
Hilary Hoynes (Berkeley)
Steven N. Kaplan (Chicago)
Larry Samuelson (Yale)
Carl Shapiro (Berkeley)
Robert Shimer (Chicago)


Please note that, for the 16 previous topics on which these new panelists have voted, we left the charts showing the distribution of responses unchanged. Those charts reflect the responses that our original panelists gave at the time, and we have not altered them to reflect the views of the new experts.

We have also taken this opportunity to ask our original panelists whether they would vote differently on any of the statements we have asked about in the past. Several experts chose to highlight statements to which they would currently respond differently. In such cases, you will see this "revote" below the panelist's original vote. We think you will enjoy seeing examples of statements on which some experts have reconsidered.

As with the 16 previous statements voted on by new panelists, these "revote" responses are not reflected in the chart that we display showing the distribution of views for that topic: all the charts for previous questions reflect the distribution of views that the experts expressed when the statement was originally posed.

About the IGM Economic Experts Panel

This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.

To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.

Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".

The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.

Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.

The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.

chicago booth