The IGM panel of economists speaks (in many voices) on paying for kidneys

The Initiative on Global Markets is an opinion poll of leading academic economists on a large variety of public policy questions, which they can answer on a range from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree," along with "uncertain" or "no opinion". They are also asked to assess their confidence in their answer A recent question was
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.

Here's a histogram of replies

Some answers were accompanied by comments, and I include all of those below...

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
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 H

Markus Brunnermeier

Princeton

Agree

6

It is important that the market is "well regulated" in order to avoid abuse and exploitation of the vulnerables.

Judith Chevalier

Yale

Strongly Agree

9

This certainly may have unintended consequences but it is hard to fault attempting to create more supply.

Darrell Duffie	Stanford	Agree	3	Under strong governance that mitigates exploitation, this market may save lives on mutually consenting terms.	Bio/Vote History
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
Barry Eichengreen	Berkeley	Uncertain	1	A market with or without subsidies for low income patients?

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
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)?

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.

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.

William Nordhaus

Yale

Agree

5

Perhaps experiments in different regimes better idea.

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.

Richard Schmalensee

MIT

Uncertain

7

How to deal with donors who don't understand risks, increased incentives to steal & import, perceived inequities...? Not simple.

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
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
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
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
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