Redesigning the Market for Volunteers: A Donor Registry

Abstract

This paper addresses volunteer labor markets where the lack of price signals, nonpecuniary motivations to supply labor, and limited fungibility of supply lead to market failure. To address the causes of the market failure, we conduct a field experiment with volunteer whole blood donors where we introduce a market-clearing mechanism (henceforth: the Registry). Our intention-to-treat estimates suggest that subjects invited to the Registry, regardless of joining, are 66% more responsive to critical shortage appeals than control subjects. While the Registry increases supply during a critical shortage episode, it does not increase supply when there is no shortage; thus, the Registry significantly improves coordination between volunteer donors and collection centers, thereby improving market outcomes. We find evidence that the Registry’s effectiveness stems from crowding-in volunteers with purely altruistic motives and volunteers with a preference for commitment. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, decision analysis.

The COVID-19 Pandemic Changes the Nudging Effect of Social Information on Individuals' Blood Donation Intention

“…In their review, Godin et al ( 2012 ) classified non-incentive interventions into four types: social interventions that manipulate altruism and egoism, reminders, foot-in-the-door or door-in-the-face techniques, and intention activation. Most of these interventions are implemented through the provision of social information, including descriptions of social impact (Moussaoui et al, 2019 ; Goette and Tripodi, 2020 ); comparisons with social norms (Xie et al, 2019 ); modeling (Rushton and Campbell, 1977 ); descriptions of a current blood shortage (Sun et al, 2016 , 2019 ); registry invitations (Heger et al, 2020 ); or questionnaires asking donors to specify their donation intention to activate cognitions about blood donation (Stutzer et al, 2011 ). However, evidence related to the efficacy of these information interventions is mixed.…”

Increasing autonomy in charitable giving: The effect of choosing the number of recipients on donations

“…For example, Slonim & Garbarino (2008) document that choosing with whom to interact increases engagement in the donation process. As such, having this choice can have a major impact on donations by increasing donor's utility from altruism and satisfaction without changing preferences or costs (Lacetera, et al 2012;Heger et al 2020).…”

Improving the Availability of Unrelated Stem Cell Donors: Evidence from a Major Donor Registry

“…Then, potential donors wait for a matching patient, which might take several years, if ever. 1 Once a matching patient is found, a request for confirmatory typing (CT; sometimes called verification typing) by a transplant center (typically via a central registry), is made to the potential donor (e.g., Bergstrom et al, 2009;Lacetera et al, 2014;Dasgupta, 2018;Heger et al, 2020). The CT stage is thus the crucial milestone in the process of actually becoming a stem cell donor.…”

“…In the context of designing volunteer markets, the blood donation literature has shown that creating a registry for blood donors has substantial benefits. Heger et al (2020) find in a field experiment with blood donors that when there are shortages in volunteer markets for blood donation, creating a registry can increase responsiveness by 66%. However, with stem cell donation, the much longer and uncertain time horizon makes it di cult for registries to maintain donors' commitment and, ultimately, to guarantee their CT availability and donation.…”