Debra Satz on noxious markets

The Stanford class day speech: Satz to graduates: Some goods should never be for sale by Stanford philosopher Debra Satz, whose interests extend to sales of kidneys

Debra Satz (2008). The Moral Limits of Markets: The Case of Human Kidneys. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108 (1pt3):269-288.

From the news story on her class day address:

"What are the different characteristics of markets? Why do some exchanges prompt "extreme revulsion"? Among the examples Satz raised: child labor, body parts, reproductive services, international arms, addictive drugs.
"What makes particular markets appear undesirable or, in my terminology, noxious?" she asked. The intrinsic nature of certain goods – friendship, a person's good name, various prizes and honor – can immediately diminish their value when they are sold.
There are also extrinsic reasons that make markets noxious, and this was Satz's focus. Is the agent fully aware of the consequences of his or her actions? Do all agents have the same information? Does the market cause extreme harm to individuals? And how extreme does it have to be to make it noxious? Does it cause harm to society?
As Satz said – with a nod to Tolstoy's line about unhappy families – "Each noxious market is noxious in its own way," and there will not be agreement on these issues. For example, the sale of kidneys is among one of the most difficult questions. Sales are illegal in every developed society, she said. Kidneys can be donated altruistically while the donor is alive or after death, but no society makes donation mandatory, even in death. Some would argue that with two kidneys people have more than they need. As of June 10, more than 80,000 Americans were on the waiting list for a kidney, and many of them will die waiting, Satz said. "...

"In closing, Satz threw up two final challenges: "Noxious markets" reflect some of the most fundamental problems of our globe, and they will not go away unless and until the underlying problems are addressed. That will require public debate and a willingness to confront hard issues."

HT: Michael Ostrovsky

And here's Megan McArdle on Satz: What We Should Feel and What We Should Not Sell

She quotes Satz's book Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets on the following juxtaposition of moral positions:

"[T]here is a dilemma for those who wish to use the mother-fetus bond to condemn pregnancy contracts while endorsing a woman's right to choose an abortion. They must hold it acceptable to abort a fetus but not to sell it."

Kidney Markets with Alvin Roth and Debra Satz (tomorrow, at Stanford)

 Tomorrow Debra Satz and I will respectfully disagree with each other about the prospects for and desirability of compensation for kidney donors, as part of the series  she is conducting on Democracy and Disagreement.

Kidney Markets with Alvin Roth and Debra Satz

FROM THE SERIES: Democracy and Disagreement

Tuesday, April 9, 2024  3:00pm - 4:50pm

CEMEX Auditorium, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA

Free

Stanford professors Alvin Roth and Debra Satz discuss kidney markets.

ABOUT THE SERIES:  Democracy and Disagreement

Debra Satz, the Vernon R. and Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences, and Paul Brest, interim dean and professor emeritus at Stanford Law School, host faculty members on opposing sides of a given issue for discussions that model civil disagreement. 

Open to the Stanford community.

Repugnant Behavior, a conference in Montpellier in February 2021

Here's the announcement and call for papers:

WINIR Workshop on

Repugnant Behaviours

24-25 February 2021

University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

Organiser: Alain Marciano

"Formally introduced in economics by Nobel laureate Alvin Roth, the concept of "repugnance" arises in the debate among philosophers (e.g., Elizabeth Anderson, Michael Sandel, Debra Satz) and other social scientists (e.g., Kristie Blevins, Amitai Etzioni, Kimberly Krawiec, Amartya Sen, Philip Tetlock) about how and why moral concerns, taboos and sacred values place, or ought to place, limits on market transactions. (A set of representative references is provided in the call for papers.)

Important dates

15 June 2020 – Abstract submission deadline

15 July 2020 – Notification of acceptance

15 December 2020 – Full paper submission deadline

Keynote speaker

Kimberly D. Krawiec

Kathrine Robinson Everett Professor of Law

Duke Law School, USA

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. (1990) “The Ethical Limitations of the Market” Economics and Philosophy 6(2): 179-205.

Anderson, E. (1993) Value in Ethics and Economics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Blevins, B., Ramirez, R. & Wight, J. B. (2010) “Ethics in the Mayan Marketplace” in M. D. White (ed.) Accepting the Invisible Hand: Market-Based Approaches to Solving Social-Economic Problems (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

Cook, P J. & Krawiec, K. D. (2018) “If We Allow Football Players and Boxers to Be Paid for Entertaining the Public, Why Don’t We Allow Kidney Donors to Be Paid for Saving Lives?” Law and Contemporary Problems 81(3): 9-35.

Elias, J. J., Lacetera, N. & Macis, M. (2015) “Sacred Values? The Effect of Information on Attitudes toward Payments for Human Organs” American Economic Review 105(5): 361-365.

Elias, J. J., Lacetera, N. & Macis, M. (2016) “Efficiency-Morality Trade-Offs In Repugnant Transactions: A Choice Experiment” NBER, Working Paper No 22632.

Etzioni, A. (1986) “The Case for a Multiple-Preference Conception” Economics and Philosophy 2: 159-183.

Etzioni, A. (1988) The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics (New York: Free Press).

Healy, K. & Krawiec, K. D. (2017) “Repugnance Management and Transactions in the Body” American Economic Review 107(5): 86-90.

Held, P. J., McCormick, F., Ojo, A & Roberts, J. P. (2016) “A Cost‐Benefit Analysis of Government Compensation of Kidney Donors” American Journal of Transplantation 16(3): 877–885.

Kass L. R. (1997) “The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans” New Republic 216(22):17-26.

Kekes J. (1998) A Case for Conservatism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).

Khalil, E. L. & Marciano, A. (2018) “A Theory of Tasteful and Distasteful Transactions” Kyklos 71(1): 110-131.

Krawiec, K. D. (2015) “Markets, Morals and Limits in the Exchange of Human Eggs” Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 13(1): 349-365.

Krawiec, K. D. (2016) “Lessons from Law About Incomplete Commodification in the Egg Market” Journal of Applied Philosophy 33(2): 160-177.

Krawiec, K. D., Liu, W. & Melcher, M. (2017) “Contract Development in a Matching Market: The Case of Kidney Exchange” Law and Contemporary Problems 80(1): 11-35.

Kray, L. J., George, L. G., Liljenquist, K. A., Galinsky, A. D., Tetlock, P. E. & Roese, N. J. (2010) “From What Might Have Been to What Must Have Been: Counterfactual Thinking Creates Meaning” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(1): 106-118.

Leider, S. & Roth, A. E. (2010) “Kidneys for Sale: Who Disapproves, and Why?” American Journal of Transplantation 10(5): 1221-1227.

McGraw, P. & Tetlock, P. E. (2005) “Taboo Trade-Offs, Relational Framing And The Acceptability Of Exchanges” Journal of Consumer Psychology 15(1): 35-38.

McGraw, P., Schwartz, J. & Tetlock, P. E. (2012) “From the Commercial to the Communal: Reframing Taboo Trade-Offs in Religious and Pharmaceutical Marketing” Journal of Consumer Research 39(1): 157-173.

Roth, A. E. (2007) “Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3): 37-58.

Sandel, M. J. (2012) What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux).

Sandel, M. J. (2013) “Market Reasoning as Moral Reasoning: Why Economists Should Re-Engage With Political Philosophy” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27(4): 121-140.

Satz, D. (1995) “Markets in Women's Sexual Labor” Ethics 106(1): 63-85.

Satz, D. (2008) “The Moral Limits of Markets: The Case of Human Kidneys” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108(1/pt3): 269-288.

Satz, D. (2012) Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets (New York: Oxford University Press).

Schoemaker, P. & Tetlock, P.E. (2011) “Taboo Scenarios: How To Think about The Unthinkable” California Management Review 54(2): 5-24.

Sen, A. (1987) On Ethics and Economics (Oxford: Blackwell).

Sheehan, M. (2016) “The Role of Emotion in Ethics and Bioethics: Dealing with Repugnance and Disgust” Journal of Medical Ethics 42(1): 1-2

Democracy & “Noxious” Markets, by Debra Satz

 The Winter 2023 issue of Daedalus is about Creating a New Moral Political Economy, edited by Margaret Levi & Henry Farrell.

The article by Debra Satz will strike a chord with market designers: she takes very seriously that markets are tools that need thoughtful design.

Democracy & “Noxious” Markets, by Debra Satz

"my argument is not a lawyer’s brief against markets. No large democratic society can or should entirely dispense with markets. Not only are markets among the most powerful tools we have for generating growth in living standards and incentivizing innovation, but also Smith was right to see their democratic potential as ways of enabling cooperation among independent, free, and equal individuals. As tools, however, we should think carefully about where to use them and how to design them when we do. While a neoliberal worldview sees efficient markets enhancing freedom and well-being everywhere, the reality is more complex. Some markets foreclose options that would better support democratic institutions and culture. Sometimes, closing off market options makes everyone better off. Consider that if individuals are free not to purchase health insurance on the market, the cost of publicly provided insurance will increase: healthy individuals are more likely to opt out of health insurance, leaving sicker individuals in the pool to be insured and raising the costs of their insurance, leading more people to forgo holding such insurance, driving the prices up even higher."

Among the markets she is concerned about are school choice, and military service:

"some of the ways parents prioritize their own children can lead to worse outcomes for other children and to the furthering of educational inequities, as well as to other social ills like instability and conflict. Evidence indicates, for example, that choice schools in the United States are more homogenous than public schools with respect to social class and race. Researchers have also shown that when public school choice is available, educated parents are especially likely to factor child demographics in their school selections.11 This may be because school quality is very hard to judge and parents default to markers such as the reading and math levels of other students. These levels, in turn, are heavily influenced by social class. It is likely that some parents take race and class directly as proxies for school quality."

...

"Extending the reach of markets even more, war has been further outsourced to private military contractors: in 2009, there were more private military contractors in Afghanistan than U.S. military troops.17 Hiring private mercenaries and outsourcing national security to a subsection of our population might spare our citizens, but as political philosopher Michael Sandel has noted, it changes the meaning of citizenship.18 In what sense are we “all in this together” if most citizens never need to think hard about decisions to go to war? Whatever the efficiency pros and cons of the decision to outsource fighting and allocate military service through market means, doing so changes our relationships with one another and our sense of a common life."

"My argument so far suffers from treating the state and market as two stark alternatives for the allocation of goods and services in society. So I now want to consider ways in which the benefits of markets can be harnessed—through design—to better serve important democratic goals. "

...

"One important mechanism is providing greater roles for worker voice. This can be done through such reforms as changing labor laws to support forms of worker association, like trade unions, allowing worker representatives on company boards, and strengthening democracy at work through diverse forms of ownership including worker-managed and -owned firms. Empowering the associational organization of labor would also help redress the background social conditions that render workers vulnerable to the oligarchic power of their employers.

"There are other examples in which careful design and policy can limit the “noxiousness” of a particular market for democracy. Policies such as a negative income tax can strengthen the power of workers, and campaign finance laws can diminish the power of money in elections. Others have argued for reforms to our current system of commodified legal representation within an adversarial system, and for single-payer health care systems."

Here's her concluding paragraph:

"Beyond education, we need to pay special attention to particular markets that affect democratic functioning and stability. Such markets include but are not limited to markets in legal representation, media and news markets, markets relating to national defense, and markets governing political rights. Politicians and other commentators usually write unreflectively, as if all markets were the same. They are not. Markets affect not only the distribution of income and wealth, but also our capacities, and our views of each other. Their strengths but also their limits depend on the fact that they are radically individualizing. But in some contexts, that individualizing threatens the practice of democracy. Markets have moral and even “spiritual” consequences relevant to our shared public life, and our evaluations of them must also attend to those consequences. A new political economy needs to take this larger evaluative frame into account."

******

The next article in the issue is a thoughtful essay on markets for personal care of the young and the elderly, organized in various ways, including care within families, written as a commentary on the Satz article: 

Is There a Proper Scope for Markets?  by Marc Fleurbaey

Limits of the market--conference in Paris (call for papers)

CALL FOR PAPERS

 “The limits of the market: commodification of nature and body” 

« Les limites du marché : la marchandisation de la nature et du corps »

Interdisciplinary workshop (philosophy, law, economics)

September, 13-14, 2018 – University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

 With plenary lectures by Margaret Jane Radin and by Debra Satz.

 The aim of this workshop is to unite debates on the commodification of nature and body that usually take place in different academic worlds, specific to a culture (the Anglosphere, the European continent), a discipline (philosophy, law, economics) or an object (body, nature).

Philosophy, law, and political economy (as well as anthropology and sociology) have long been questioning what things can be sold (liberty, money, labor, land). This debate has been renewed in the 1980s, with the publication of Margaret Jane Radin’s Contested commodities in 1996, which has become a landmark in “commodification studies”. These studies do not deal with the role and desirability of the market in general, or of market societies, but focus on particular markets that might pose ethical, moral or social problems (for example for organs, babies, or environmental services), in practice or in discourse. Philosophers, like Debra Satz with her “noxious markets”, and economists, like Alvin Roth with his “repugnant markets”, also contributed to these studies. The issue is the normative limit of the scope of the market in capitalist societies, not only in terms of a yes or no question, but also in terms of the limitations imposed to this kind of markets (incomplete commodification).

This debate, or at least this self-identified field, is mainly driven by the Anglosphere. The same questions are however posed in different cultural, theoretical and cultural frameworks. In France, we can mention for example works by Marie-Angèle Hermitte in law, by Philippe Steiner in economics, and by Catherine Larrère in philosophy. One of the aims of this workshop is to compare and to confront these different traditions of thought. The scientific committee will also encourage the discussion of two kinds of specific markets: nature and the environment on the one hand, and the body, its parts and products, on the other. Specifically, do nature and the body constitute particular cases of commodification? Does the debate on the financialization and valuation of environmental services share characteristics with that on body commodification? The Committee will favour communications in philosophy, law, economics, and political theory; as well as interdisciplinary communications. Finally, communications on the history and interpretation of these ideas, or analysing the political discourses on commodification, are also welcome.

We will have the pleasure to welcome Margaret Jane Radin (University of Toronto) and Debra Satz (Stanford University) for keynote lectures as well as invited panelists: Valérie Boisvert (University of Lausanne), Laurence Brunet (Cochin APHP), Stéphanie Hennette-Vauchez (University Paris Nanterre), Marie-Angèle Hermitte (CNRS, EHESS), Florence Jany-Catrice (University of Lille), Catherine Larrère (University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), Jennifer Merchant (University Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas), Christine Noiville (CNRS), John O’Neill (University of Manchester), Jean-Fabien Spitz (University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), Philippe Steiner (University Paris Sorbonne).

Languages: French and English

Keydates:

Submission of proposals (600 words) before 29 January 2018 to commodification2018@gmail.com

Repugnant markets on the radio

Repugnant Markets on the radio: I'll join Ken Taylor and Debra Satz on Philosophy Talk today, June 3

"We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France's attitude toward horse meat. What role, if any, should moral repugnance play in determining the rules of our marketplaces? Even if we want to eliminate the influence of moral repugnance, can we? Debra and Ken hold their noses with Al Roth from Stanford University, author of Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design."

Get Philosophy Talk

Radio

Sunday at 11am (pacific) on KALW 91.7 FM Local Public Radio, San Francisc

Ken wrote thoughtfully about this yesterday on the Philosophy Talk blog:
REPUGNANT MARKETS,  Ken Taylor
*************
Update: and here we are at KALW:

Ken Taylor, Debra Satz, and Al Roth in the studio at Philosophy Talk
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeyV20-VQAAApPH.jpg 

And here's a link to a recording of the show:

Repugnant markets: listen to my Philosophy Talk chat with Ken Taylor and Debra Satz

Kidney Markets--my debate with Debra Satz (video)

The video of my debate with Debra Satz on kidney markets is now available, see below.  

You can also find it here: https://humsci.stanford.edu/events/kidney-markets-alvin-roth-and-debra-satz

The question we debated was "Should we experiment with forms of regulated payments to individuals who provide a kidney for others?"  

The audience was asked to vote on that question before we began, and again after we concluded.

 

 To set the stage, in an early slide I spoke briefly about Debra's book  Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets, and my book Who Gets What — And Why. The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design.   

If you happen to have read those books, I think you can already have a good idea of what we said, and what a friendly discussion it was.

A philosopher looks at repugnant markets

The Dutch philosopher/economist Ingrid Robeyns writes about Roth and Satz on repugnant/noxious markets

She writes that "economists would benefit from explicitly introducing values in their analysis of repugnant markets (and markets in general)," and holds up the work of Debra Satz as a good example of how to go about this.


(Here are my previous posts related to the work of my now-colleague Debra Satz.)

Ethics and Market Design: Stanford, Jan 8 (update, note room change)

If you're on the Stanford campus tomorrow, you're invited to hear a panel discussion, with Anat Admati, Debra Satz and me on repugnance and, more generally, Ethics and Market Design

EVENT OVERVIEW

Markets depend on legal and institutional structures. These structures raise questions of ethics: are they fair? Do they generate harms?  If harms are unavoidable, do these structures fairly manage and distribute the risks of harm?This panel discussion brings together prominent  philosophers and economists to discuss the potentials and limits of designing markets with ethics in mind. Cases in point will be markets for donated organs and financial markets. 

This is an RSVP event. RSVP here.

SPEAKER

Anat Admati, George G.C. Parker Professor of Finance and Economics at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, author of The Bankers’ New Clothes: What’s Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It.

Al Roth, Craig and Susan McCaw Professor of Economics at Stanford University & Gund professor of economics and business administration emeritus at Harvard University, winner of the 2012 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his work on market design.

Debra Satz, Marta Sutton Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society, Professor of Philosophy and Political Science, author of Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Limits of Markets.

4:00PM ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2015 AT STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, CROWN QUADRANGLE, MANNING FACULTY LOUNGE (ROOM 270)

Sponsored by The McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society / ethicsinsociety@stanford.edu

***********
Update (with room change) from the organizers:
"Just a quick update on tomorrow's panel discussion: we've been overwhelmed with RSVPs (over 100), so we booked a larger room for the panel discussion (180 in the Law School - we'll put up signposts tomorrow), and we had to close the list for the dinner. "

Perfect Strangers: kidney donation movie

I went to see Perfect Strangers last night at Stanford, by Stanford's documentary filmmaker Jan Krawitz.
It was followed by a panel discussion by Krawitz, Stanford philosopher Debra Satz, and two non-directed kidney donors, one of whom was the main character in the film. Both initiated non-directed donor chains.

The other donor was the subject of this 2011 blog post A kidney donor argues that selling kidneys should be legal.

Experiments as repugnant transactions (if subjects are paid)

Here's a paper that reports a survey of IRB members on whether payments to experimental subjects are coercive. (The focus was on medical trials...)

MONEY, COERCION, AND UNDUE INDUCEMENT: A SURVEY OF ATTITUDES ABOUT PAYMENTS TO RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
by Emily A. Largent, BSN, Christine Grady, PhD, RN, Franklin G. Miller, PhD, and Alan Wertheimer, PhD, IRB. 2012 Jan-Feb; 34(1): 1–8.

"Nearly all agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that subjects are coerced if they are threatened with harm for not participating (91%). The majority also agreed that participants are coerced if the offer of payment makes them participate when they otherwise would not (65%), or when the offer of payment causes them to feel that they have no reasonable alternative but to participate (82%). Women tended to agree more than men (p = 0.03) that participants are coerced if the payment offer makes them participate when they otherwise would not. No other trends were observed by gender, education, or IRB membership. Most respondents agreed that payment offers are an undue influence if they cause participants to participate when they otherwise would not (81%), if a participant perceives he has no reasonable alternative but to participate (79%), or if the payment offer distorts participants’ evaluation of risks and benefits (98%). "


HT: Debra Satz

Celebration of Ken Arrow at Stanford

October 9, 2017
Academic Tribute to Kenneth Arrow

Location: 

Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center, Stanford University

 Map

Admission: 

By invitation only

October 9, 2017

8:00am to 8:30am

Breakfast

8:30am to 8:40am

Welcoming Remarks

Presenter(s) : 

Alvin Roth, Douglas Bernheim, and Larry Kramer

8:40am to 9:00am

Discussion and celebration of the newly announced Nobel Prize winner

9:00am to 10:00am

Social Choice Panel

Presenter(s) : 

Eric Maskin, Kotaro Suzumura, Amartya Sen, and Salvador Barbera

Moderator: 

Roger Myerson

10:00am to 10:30am

Arrow's Broader Intellectual Contributions

Presenter(s) : 

Lawrence Lau, Mordecai Kurz and Eytan Sheshinski (Chaired by Matthew Jackson)

10:30am to 11:00am

Break

11:00am to 12:00pm

General Equilibrium Panel

Presenter(s) : 

John Geanakoplos, Robert Lucas, Herakles Polemarchakis, and Andreu Mas-Colell

Moderator: 

Chris Shannon

12:00pm to 12:20pm

Lunch Keynote I

Presenter(s) : 

Sir James Mirrlees (Chaired by John Shoven)

12:20pm to 1:20pm

Lunch

1:20pm to 1:40pm

Lunch Keynote II

Presenter(s) : 

Robert Solow (Chaired by Mark Duggan)

1:40pm to 2:00pm

Remarks on Behalf of Arrow's Graduate Students

Presenter(s) : 

Nancy Stokey and Ross Starr (Chaired by Alvin Roth)

2:00pm to 3:00pm

Health Economics Panel

Presenter(s) : 

Victor Fuchs, Alan Garber, Amy Finkelstein, and Sir Angus Deaton

Moderator: 

Victor Fuchs

3:00pm to 3:30pm

Break

3:30pm to 4:30pm

Finance Panel

Presenter(s) : 

Darrell Duffie, William Sharpe, Thorsten Hens, and Markus Brunnermeier

Moderator: 

Hugo Sonnenschein

4:30pm to 5:15pm

Thoughts on Arrow's Broader Influence on Social Science Research

Presenter(s) : 

Debra Satz, Richard Cottle, Sir Partha DasGupta and Joseph Stiglitz(Chaired by Matthew Jackson)

5:15pm to 6:15pm

Reception

6:15pm to 7:45pm

Dinner

Presenter(s) : 

Lawrence Summers

David Arrow
Andrew Arrow

Anita Arrow Summers

7:45pm to 8:30pm

Additional Tributes

Presenter(s) : 

Chaired by Jerry Green