What do you think? Can you come up with an example where markets would be an efficient way to arrange allocation of a particular good or a service but not necessarily fair, or equitable, or acceptable in some way? Would like to get some examples in the comments.
2 comments:
I was thinking in a way similar of kidney donations, would be blood donations. There are already small incentives for those who donate blood(around 20$?), but if the incentives were higher, let’s say $735, evidently people would donate way more, specially given the lower risks compared to kidney donation. But then, thinking of the consequences, I could see the dangers of people maybe using animal’s blood (cow, pigs maybe?) as their own just for the money, I also see people using fake identities just to be able to donate multiple times and earn more.
Also pharmaceuticals in a way. A company might develop a medicine serves as a cure for a rare disease, but the price would likely be set up really high. As a consequence, only those with higher incomes would be able to afford it. So it is efficient, for those who have money, but it raises an equity problem, as those with lower income would not have access to such treatment.
This makes me think of cancer treatments. Yes, there are treatments, but most people are unable to afford them and will likely go into a spiral of debt once they do decide to pay for it resulting in devastation for the family even if someone were to survive. Financially, there is such a disadvantage in the medical field and it is disheartening.
Post a Comment