Mario Macis's guest appearances

Mario Macis

Economics Detective Radio

Scientific Sense ®

Taboo Trades

Diana Thomas

Peter Jaworski

Jonathan Morduch

Dipayan Ghosh

Robert Wright

Mike Munger

Deirdre McCloskey

Jason Brennan

Mark Blyth

Sara Seager

Bryan Caplan

Zach Weinersmith

Alex Nowrasteh

Steve Horwitz

Phil Magness

OwlTail

Johns Hopkins

Economic Rewards to Motivate Blood Donations, Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment, and Societal support for monetary compensation for plasma and kidney donors. Prof. Mario Macis is a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University. His research interests include how economic incentives interact with psychological factors and social norms to drive individual behavior and policy-relevant outcomes. In particular, he studies the role of incentives in shaping pro-social behavior and attitudes toward morally controversial exchanges. Recently, these two lines of work converged into a research agenda aimed at understanding what determines social support for market-based solutions to social problems.   ---   Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/support

Economic Rewards to Motivate Blood Donations, Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment, and Societal support for monetary compensation for plasma and kidney donors. Prof. Mario Macis is a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University. His research interests include how economic incentives interact with psychological factors and social norms to drive individual behavior and policy-relevant outcomes. In particular, he studies the role of incentives in shaping pro-social behavior and attitudes toward morally controversial exchanges. Recently, these two lines of work converged into a research agenda aimed at understanding what determines social support for market-based solutions to social problems. --- Send in a voice message: <a href="https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/message" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/message</a> Support this podcast: <a href="https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/support" rel="payment nofollow" target="_blank">https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/support</a>

Prof. Mario Macis, Professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University

Nico and Mario discuss their research on blood donation and attitudes toward taboo trades. I fail at zoom. Mario Macis is a Professor of Economics at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. His research interests include pro-social behavior, morally controversial transactions, global health, experimental economics, development economics, and labor economics. Nico Lacetera is a Professor of Strategic Management at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. His research concerns the ethical constraints and social support to markets, the motivations for altruistic behavior, and various topics in industrial and innovation economics.Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis, and Robert Slonim. "Will there be blood? Incentives and displacement effects in pro-social behavior." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 4.1 (2012): 186-223.Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis, and Robert Slonim. "Economic rewards to motivate blood donations." Science 340.6135 (2013): 927-928.Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis, and Robert Slonim. "Rewarding volunteers: A field experiment." Management Science 60.5 (2014): 1107-1129.Elías, Julio J., Nicola Lacetera, and Mario Macis. "Paying for kidneys? a randomized survey and choice experiment." American Economic Review 109.8 (2019): 2855-88.Elias, Julio J., Nicola Lacetera, and Mario Macis. "Sacred values? The effect of information on attitudes toward payments for human organs." American Economic Review105.5 (2015): 361-65.Compliance Policy Guide CPG Sec. 230.150: Blood Donor Classification Statement, Paid or Volunteer Donor, Guidance for FDA StaffDhingra, Neelam. "In defense of WHO's blood donation policy." Science 342.6159 (2013): 691-692.

Nico and Mario discuss their research on blood donation and attitudes toward taboo trades. I fail at zoom.  Mario Macis is a Professor of Economics at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. His research interests include pro-social behavior, morally controversial transactions, global health, experimental economics, development economics, and labor economics. Nico Lacetera is a Professor of Strategic Management at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. His research concerns the ethical constraints and social support to markets, the motivations for altruistic behavior, and various topics in industrial and innovation economics. Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis, and Robert Slonim. "<a href="https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/35985/1/616673434.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Will there be blood? Incentives and displacement effects in pro-social behavior</a>." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 4.1 (2012): 186-223.Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis, and Robert Slonim. "<a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.964.1351&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Economic rewards to motivate blood donations</a>." Science 340.6135 (2013): 927-928.Lacetera, Nicola, Mario Macis, and Robert Slonim. "<a href="http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/LMS2_ManSci-Paper-Final.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Rewarding volunteers: A field experiment</a>." Management Science 60.5 (2014): 1107-1129.Elías, Julio J., Nicola Lacetera, and Mario Macis. "<a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180568" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Paying for kidneys? a randomized survey and choice experiment</a>." American Economic Review 109.8 (2019): 2855-88.Elias, Julio J., Nicola Lacetera, and Mario Macis. "<a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20151035" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Sacred values? The effect of information on attitudes toward payments for human organs.</a>" American Economic Review105.5 (2015): 361-65.Compliance Policy Guide CPG Sec. 230.150: <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/75039/download" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Blood Donor Classification Statement</a>, Paid or Volunteer Donor, Guidance for FDA StaffDhingra, Neelam. "<a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6159/691.summary" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">In defense of WHO's blood donation policy.</a>" Science 342.6159 (2013): 691-692.

Blood and Repugnant Transactions with Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis

My guest today, Mario Macis of Johns Hopkins University, has done a number of interesting studies related to blood and organ donation, particularly the compensation of blood and organ donors. For instance, Mario and his coauthor, Nicola Lacetera, observed the effect of an incentive system that offered symbolic rewards to blood donors in a particular Italian town. They found that when prizes for frequent donation were publicly announced, people donated more blood, indicating that social image concerns are a factor in blood donation. Through a large-scale natural field experiment with the American Red Cross, Mario and his coauthors showed that offering donors economic incentives to donate blood increases donation without increasing the fraction of ineligible donors. Mario's more recent research deals with people's attitudes towards compensated kidney donation. Using a choice experiment, Mario and his coauthors study the determinants of Americans' views on these repugnant transactions: Regulation and public policies are often the result of competition and compromise between different views and interests. In several cases, strongly held moral beliefs voiced by societal groups lead lawmakers to prohibit certain transactions or to prevent them from occurring through markets. However, there is limited evidence about the specific nature of the general population’s opposition to using prices in such contentious transactions. We conducted a choice experiment on a representative sample of Americans to examine preferences for legalizing payments to kidney donors. We found strong polarization, with many participants in favor or against payments regardless of potential supply gains. However, about 20% of respondents would switch to supporting payments for large enough supply gains. Preferences for compensation have strong moral foundations. Respondents especially reject direct payments by patients, which they find would violate principles of fairness. We corroborate the interpretation of our findings with the analysis of a costly decision to donate money to a foundation that supports donor compensation. Finally, we discuss some proposed legislation that would allow limited experiments in compensating kidney donors.

My guest today, <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/mmacis/" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">Mario Macis</a> of Johns Hopkins University, has done a number of interesting studies related to blood and organ donation, particularly the compensation of blood and organ donors. For instance, Mario and his coauthor, Nicola Lacetera, <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/mck5po8k85z33dg/lm-awards-jebo.pdf?dl=0" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">observed the effect of an incentive system</a> that offered symbolic rewards to blood donors in a particular Italian town. They found that when prizes for frequent donation were publicly announced, people donated more blood, indicating that social image concerns are a factor in blood donation. Through <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/w24387yet2fqax4/LMS_AEJpol.pdf?dl=0" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">a large-scale natural field experiment with the American Red Cross</a>, Mario and his coauthors showed that offering donors economic incentives to donate blood increases donation without increasing the fraction of ineligible donors. Mario's <a href="https://site.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/4760-ethical_concerns.pdf" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">more recent research</a> deals with people's attitudes towards compensated kidney donation. Using a choice experiment, Mario and his coauthors study the determinants of Americans' views on these repugnant transactions: Regulation and public policies are often the result of competition and compromise between different views and interests. In several cases, strongly held moral beliefs voiced by societal groups lead lawmakers to prohibit certain transactions or to prevent them from occurring through markets. However, there is limited evidence about the specific nature of the general population’s opposition to using prices in such contentious transactions. We conducted a choice experiment on a representative sample of Americans to examine preferences for legalizing payments to kidney donors. We found strong polarization, with many participants in favor or against payments regardless of potential supply gains. However, about 20% of respondents would switch to supporting payments for large enough supply gains. Preferences for compensation have strong moral foundations. Respondents especially reject direct payments by patients, which they find would violate principles of fairness. We corroborate the interpretation of our findings with the analysis of a costly decision to donate money to a foundation that supports donor compensation. Finally, we discuss some <a href="https://cartwright.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/cartwright-announces-legislation-to-increase-organ-donation" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">proposed legislation</a> that would allow limited experiments in compensating kidney donors.

Compensating Blood and Organ Donors with Mario Macis