Popular repugnance contrasts with legal bans on controversial markets

Abstract

We study popular attitudes in Germany, Spain, the Philippines, and the United States toward three controversial markets—prostitution, surrogacy, and global kidney exchange (GKE). Of those markets, only prostitution is banned in the United States and the Philippines, and only prostitution is allowed in Germany and Spain. Unlike prostitution, majorities support legalization of surrogacy and GKE in all four countries. So, there is not a simple relation between public support for markets, or bans, and their legal and regulatory status. Because both markets and bans on markets require social support to work well, this sheds light on the prospects for effective regulation of controversial markets.

What makes a market transaction morally repugnant?

“…For instance, respondents considered carbon emissions trading and selling permits to shoot rare animals highly repugnant, but both are legal. Such mismatches may be grounds for policy makers to reevaluate those transactions (also see Roth & Wang, 2020); however, it is worth noting that legalization does not necessarily need to reflect the sentiments of the majority (e.g., if the trade in question affects a group of people who disagree with the majority on the transaction's repugnance). Finally, we observed that the degree of moral outrage a transaction prompts is a good predictor for the desire for regulation (comparable to "dread risk" in the case of desired regulation of risks Slovic, 1987), even though notable exceptions exist in which regulation is desired in the absence of moral outrage (e.g., surrogate motherhood, organ donations from deceased donors).…”

“…Sensitivity to disgust varies across individuals; for instance, women have been found to be more easily morally disgusted than men, though evidence is mixed (Al-Shawaf et al, 2015Tybur et al, 2009). It is also possible that the source of interindividual differences resides in the interaction between a particular transaction and individual characteristics (Roth & Wang, 2020). Whatever the reason, understanding what causes polarized attitudes toward specific transactions is likely to foster more constructive public debate.…”

“…For instance, respondents considered carbon emissions trading and selling permits to shoot rare animals highly repugnant, but both are legal in their countries. Such mismatches may be grounds for policy makers to take a closer look at certain transactions (also see Roth & Wang, 2020). Note, however, that legalization does not necessarily need to reflect public sentiment-for instance, if the trade in question affects a minority population that, contrary to the majority, does not find it repugnant.…”

Global kidney exchange should expand wisely

“…We have recently published new data to refute this argument as well. In surveys in Germany, Spain, United States (U.S.), and Philippines asking whether GKE should be legal, following a detailed description of GKE, 79%, 74%, 87%, and 85% answered “legal” to the question “should this exchange be legal or illegal?” [20].…”

Global kidney chains

“… † GKE previously received support from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons ( https://asts.org/about-asts/position-statements#.X8g-GshKg2w ), and surveys indicate public support ( 33 ). …”