Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T05:36:06.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repugnance and institutions: an introductory essay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2023

Marie Daou  and
Alain Marciano Open the ORCID record for Alain Marciano [Opens in a new window]
Marie Daou
Affiliation:
University of Montpellier, Faculty of Economics (MRE), Montpellier, France
Alain Marciano*
Affiliation:
THEMA CY Cergy Paris Université UMR CNRS 8184, Cergy, France Karl Mittermaier Centre for Philosophy of Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
*
Corresponding author: Alain Marciano; E-mail: alain.marciano@umontpellier.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This symposium is based on a workshop organized (online) on 24–25 February 2021 and sponsored by World Interdisciplinary Network for Institutional Research (WINIR). In this introduction, we stress the institutional dimension of repugnance, and show how it is dealt with in the papers gathered in the symposium. Kimberly Krawiec analyses repugnance in connection with externalities, and shows that contrary to what the ‘corruption theorists’ say, creating repugnant markets does not undermine social values. Peter Cserne shows that, in order to ensure a fully efficient regulation of repugnant behaviours, a transversal view combining the economic and legal approach to repugnance is necessary. The last two papers focus on entrepreneurship. Erwin Dekker and Julien Gradoz analyse the management of repugnance: how two firms, producing goods considered repugnant, adopt strategic behaviour to offset the costs generated by repugnance. Darcy W. E. Allen, Chris Berg and Sinclair Davidson take the analysis one step further and examine how ‘evasive entrepreneurs’ use repugnance as profit opportunity. Their innovations challenge social norms and the boundaries of what is viewed as repugnant in the society at large.

Keywords

entrepreneursexternalitiesinstitutionsmoralityrepugnance
Type
Introduction
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , December 2023 , pp. 893 - 902
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Millennium Economics Ltd.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, D.W.E., Berg, C. and Davidson, S. (2022) Repugnant innovation. Journal of Institutional Economics, 1–12. doi: 10.1017/S1744137422000364.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. (1990) The ethical limitations of the market. Economics and Philosophy 6(2), 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (1993) Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bertrand, É. (2021) Moralism at work in arguments against commodification: Repugnance and degradation, working-paper presented at WINIR Workshop on ‘Repugnant behaviours’, 24–25 February 2021.Google Scholar
Bénabou, R., Falk, A. and Tirole, J. (2018) Narratives, Imperatives, and Moral Reasoning, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series VL - No. 24798.Google Scholar
Brennan, J. (2013) Is market society intrinsically repugnant? Journal of Business Ethics 112, 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, J. and Jaworski, P.M. (2016) Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1957) Federal expenditure and State Functions, in Federal Expenditure Policy for Economic Growth and Stability. Washington: Joint Economic Committee, pp. 174–179.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1959) Positive economics, welfare economics, and political economy. Journal of Law and Economics 2(oct), 124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, P.J. and Krawiec, K.D. (2018) Why ban payment to kidney donors but not football players? The News & Observer, Feb. 01, https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article197844284.html#storylink=cpyGoogle Scholar
Cserne, P. (2023) Economic analyses of repugnant market transactions: a modest typology. Journal of Institutional Economics, published online, 1–14. doi: 10.1017/S1744137423000139.Google Scholar
Daou, M. and Marciano, A. (2023) Repugnance, externalities and subjectivism: A comment on Krawiec, published online. doi: 10.1017/S1744137423000218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daou, M. and Marciano, A. (forthcoming) Classical pro-market arguments. In Bertrand, E and Panitch, V (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Communication. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dekker, E. and Gradoz, J. (2022) Managing repugnance: How core-stigma shapes firm behavior. Journal of Institutional Economics, 1–15. doi: 10.1017/S1744137422000455.Google Scholar
Elias, J.J., Lacetera, N. and Macis, M. (2015a) Markets and morals: An experimental survey study. PLoS ONE 10(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.Pone.0127069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elias, J.J., Lacetera, N. and Macis, M. (2015b) Sacred values? The effect of information on attitudes toward payments for human organs. American Economic Review 105(5), 361–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elias, J.J., Lacetera, N. and Macis, M. (2016) Efficiency-morality trade-offs in repugnant transactions: A choice experiment, NBER, Working Paper No 22632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, J.J., Lacetera, N. and Macis, M. (2017) Understanding repugnance: Implications for public policy. World Medical and Health Policy, 9(4), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1986) The case for a multiple-utility conception. Economics and Philosophy 2(2), 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1988) The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Falk, A. and Szech, N. (2013) Morals and markets. Science 340(May), 707–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A.P. (1991) Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, A.P. (1992) The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory social relations. Psychological Review 99(4), 689–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A.P. (2000) Complementarity theory: Why human social capacities evolved to require cultural complements. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4(1), 76–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A.P. (2002) Socio-Moral emotions provide the self-control needed to sustain social relationships. Self and Identity 1(2), 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A.P. (2004) Four modes of constituting relationships: Consubstantial assimilation; space, magnitude, time, and force; concrete procedures; abstract symbolism, in Haslam, N (ed.), Relational Models Theory: A Contemporary Overview. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 61–146.Google Scholar
Fiske, A.P. and Tetlock, P.E. (1997) Taboo trade-offs: reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Political Psychology 18(2), 255–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grolleau, G., Marciano, A. and Mzoughi, N. (2020) The strategic use of scandals. Kyklos 73(4), 524–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, K. and Krawiec, K.D. (2012) Custom, contract, and kidney exchange. Duke Law Journal 62(3), 645–670.Google ScholarPubMed
Healy, K. and Krawiec, K.D. (2017) Repugnance management and transactions in the body. American Economic Review 107(5), 86–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Held, P.J., McCormick, F., Ojo, A. and Roberts, J.P. (2016) A cost-benefit analysis of government compensation of kidney donors. American Journal of Transplantation 16(3), 877–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodgson, G. (2021) On the limits of markets. Journal of Institutional Economics 17(1), 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kass, L.R. (1997) The wisdom of repugnance: why we should ban the cloning of humans. New Republic 216(2), 17–26.Google Scholar
Kanbur, R. (2004) On Obnoxious Markets, in Cullenberg, S. and Pattanaik, P. (eds), Globalization, Culture and the Limits of the Market: Essays in Economics and Philosophy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–61.Google Scholar
Kekes, J. (1998) A Case for Conservatism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Khalil, E.L. and Marciano, A. (2018) A theory of tasteful and distasteful transactions. Kyklos 71(1), 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krawiec, K.D. (2009) Sunny Samaritans and egomaniacs: price-fixing in the gamete market. Law and Contemporary Problems 72(3), 59–90.Google Scholar
Krawiec, K.D. (2015) Markets, morals, and limits in the exchange of human eggs. Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 13, 349–365.Google Scholar
Krawiec, K.D. (2016) Lessons from Law About Incomplete Commodification in the Egg Market. Journal of Applied Philosophy 33(2), 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krawiec, K.D. (2022) Markets, repugnance, and externalities. Journal of Institutional Economics, 1–12. doi: 10.1017/S1744137422000157.Google Scholar
Kray, L.J., George, L.G., Liljenquist, K.A., Galinsky, A.D., Tetlock, P.E. and Roese, N.J. (2010) From what might have been to what must have been: Counterfactual thinking creates meaning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(1), 106–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leider, S. and Roth, A.E. (2010) Kidneys for sale: Who disapproves, and why? American Journal of Transplantation 10(5), 1221–1227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGraw, A.P. and Tetlock, P.E. (2005) Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges. Journal of Consumer Psychology 15(1), 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, A.P., Tetlock, P.E. and Kristel, O.V. (2003) The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things’. Journal of Consumer Research 30, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, M.J. (1987) Market-Inalienability. Harvard Law Review 100(8), 1849–1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, M.J. (1996) Contested Commodities: The trouble with Trade in Sex, Children, Body Parts, and Other Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roth, A.E. (2007) Repugnance as a constraint on markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, M.J. (2012) What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Sandel, M.J. (2013) Market reasoning as moral reasoning: why economists should re-engage with political philosophy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27(4), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satz, D. (1992) Markets in women's reproductive labor. Philosophy & Public Affairs 21(2), 107–131.Google Scholar
Satz, D. (1995) Markets in women's sexual labor. Ethics 106(1), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satz, D. (2008) The moral limits of markets: the case of human kidneys. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society CVIII(3), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satz, D. (2010) Why Some Things Should not be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoemaker, P. and Tetlock, P.E. (2011) Taboo scenarios: How to think about the unthinkable. California Management Review 54(2), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1987) On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. (2016) The role of emotion in ethics and bioethics: Dealing with repugnance and disgust. Journal of Medical Ethics 42(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A. (1776) An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P.E., Mellers, B.A. and Scoblic, J.P. (2017) Sacred versus pseudo-sacred values: How people cope with taboo trade-offs. American Economic Review 107(5), 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelizer, V. (2005) The Purchase of Intimacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar