Eduardo Laguna Müggenburg explores the repugnance of price gouging, and defends his dissertation

 Eduardo Laguna successfully defended his Ph.D. dissertation last month. One of the papers he presented  (with Justin Holz and Rafael Jiménez-Duran) was an online experiment in which Amazon sellers of face masks and sanitizer at high prices were sampled, and subjects in the experiment were offered the opportunity to pay to have items be purchased from those sellers and donated to hospitals, and also to pay to have those sellers reported as price gougers to the  Department of Justice National Center for Disaster Fraud.  Some subjects were willing to buy, some were willing to pay to report, and some were willing to pay to avoid having sellers reported.

Here's the paper 

Quantifying repugnance to price gouging with an incentivized reporting experiment 

by Justin Holz, Rafael Jiménez-Duran and Eduardo Laguna-Müggenburg

Abstract: "Anti-price gouging laws are ubiquitous and people take costly actions to report violators to law-enforcement agencies, which suggests that they value punishing price increases during emergencies. We argue with a model that consumer reports contain information about repugnance to price gouging, or willingness to prevent third-party transactions (Roth, 2007). We conduct a field experiment during the first wave of COVID-19 to measure individuals’ willingness to pay to report sellers who increase prices of personal protective equipment. The willingness to pay to report is non-negligible, polarized, and responsive to the seller's price. We also find that repugnance is partly due to distaste for seller profits, depending on the product."

Remarkably, "Half of subjects who are willing to pay to report sellers are also willing to forgo the $5 gift card to have us donate PPE from a price-gouging seller."

***************

That is, there are substantial numbers of participants who are willing to pay to report the seller, but are also willing to pay for the experimenters to purchase from the seller and donate the PPE to a hospital.  

We often think of repugnance as partitioning the population—there are people who want to transact, and others who think the transaction shouldn’t happen.  The fact that some individuals can simultaneously have both these feelings is, I think,  one of the most striking results of this experiment—it shows just how complex repugnance can be. These are people who recognize that buying goods at inflated prices (and donating them to hospitals) may be efficient, and worth doing given the shortage,  but would still like to see the sellers fined or jailed.  

I'm reminded of this (third hand) story about a N. Carolina hurricane, in which people waiting in line to buy ice at high prices nevertheless applauded when police arrived to arrest the sellers for price gouging... They Clapped: Can Price-Gouging Laws Prohibit Scarcity?

************

    Here's a picture from Eduardo's dissertation defense, conducted over Zoom:

Top: Matt Jackson, Eduardo Laguna, Al Roth

   Bottom: Larry Goulder, Chenzi Xu, Melanie Morten

Welcome to the club, Eduardo.