Blogger Tim Harford got blogger
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?