IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-03714-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the opposition to market institutions on moral grounds

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Evelyn Hauge

    (The Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research)

  • Snorre Kverndokk

    (The Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research)

  • Andreas Lange

    (University of Hamburg)

Abstract

From a liberal viewpoint, voluntary trade appears to be something that should meet universal approval. If no one is obliged to trade, establishing a market institution could only make all better off. Nonetheless, specific market institutions meet substantial skepticism and criticism. This paper extends the extant literature by surveying the moral opposition towards trade in multiple dimensions and linking this to policy support measures. We provide survey results on moral opposition to trade in organs, sex services, surrogate mothers, trade in carbon permits, goods produced in poor countries, and food from countries where people suffer from hunger. These cover the potential reasons for opposing trade institutions: moral concerns, paternalism regarding risk-taking, and distributional concerns. Beyond this, we measure support for policies on unemployment benefits, risk prevention, equality goals within society, and redistribution. The survey of Amazon Mechanical Turk workers from the U.S. reveals significant moral opposition to trade in diverse dimensions. About a third of the participants strongly oppose trade in body items, sex services, and food imports from countries where a large proportion of the population suffers from hunger and malnutrition. Fewer participants strongly oppose trading CO2 permits, importing from developing countries, or allowing surrogate mothership. Besides other correlates (e.g., gender, education, being conservative), individuals’ attitudes towards imposing risks on others are identified as an important correlate of the opposition to trade for all the contexts of trade: those who are averse to exposing others to risk for their own advantage are more likely to oppose trading institutions. This measure of social preferences also relates to support for policies on risk prevention, equality goals within society, and redistribution. We discuss potential mechanisms behind this explanatory power of the newly identified measure.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Evelyn Hauge & Snorre Kverndokk & Andreas Lange, 2024. "On the opposition to market institutions on moral grounds," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03714-x
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03714-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-03714-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-03714-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elhanan Helpman & Oleg Itskhoki & Marc-Andreas Muendler & Stephen J. Redding, 2017. "Trade and Inequality: From Theory to Estimation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(1), pages 357-405.
    2. Tannenwald, Nina, 1999. "The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 433-468, July.
    3. Christian T. Elbæk & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Lene Aarøe & Tobias Otterbring, 2023. "Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Andreas G B Ziegler & Giorgia Romagnoli & Theo Offerman, 2024. "Morals in Multi-Unit Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 22(5), pages 2225-2260.
    5. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    6. Luigino Bruni & Robert Sugden, 2013. "Reclaiming Virtue Ethics for Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 141-164, Fall.
    7. Alvin E. Roth, 2007. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 37-58, Summer.
    8. Michael J. Sandel, 2013. "Market Reasoning as Moral Reasoning: Why Economists Should Re-engage with Political Philosophy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 121-140, Fall.
    9. Subhas Ranjan Chakraborty & Paula Banerjee & Kaustubh Mani Sengupta (ed.), 2024. "The Long 2020," India Studies in Business and Economics, Springer, number 978-981-99-4815-4, December.
    10. Alvin E. Roth & Stephanie W. Wang, 2020. "Opinion: Popular repugnance contrasts with legal bans on controversial markets," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(33), pages 19792-19798, August.
    11. Satz, Debra, 2010. "Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195311594.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hauge, Karen E. & Kverndokk, Snorre & Lange, Andreas, 2024. "Opposition to markets: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karen Evelyn Hauge & Snorre Kverndokk & Andreas Lange, 2021. "Why People Oppose Trade Institutions - On Morality, Fairness and Risky Actions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9456, CESifo.
    2. Hauge, Karen E. & Kverndokk, Snorre & Lange, Andreas, 2024. "Opposition to markets: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    3. Marie Daou & Alain Marciano, 2022. "Commodification: The traditional pro-market arguments," Post-Print hal-03876907, HAL.
    4. Yew-Kwang NG, 2016. "Extending Economic Analysis to Analyze Policy Issues More Broadly," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1609, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    5. Jason Monios, 2023. "The Moral Limits of Market-Based Mechanisms: An Application to the International Maritime Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(2), pages 283-299, October.
    6. Luigino Bruni & Paolo Santori, 2022. "The Illusion of Merit and the Demons of Economic Meritocracy: Which are the Legitimate Expectations of the Market?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 415-427, March.
    7. Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2022. "Sharing responsibility for the good," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Bjorn Bartling & Ernst Fehr & Yagiz ozdemir, 2023. "Does Market Interaction Erode Moral Values?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 226-235, January.
    9. Michael A. Clemens, 2018. "Testing for Repugnance in Economic Transactions: Evidence from Guest Work in the Gulf," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(S1), pages 5-44.
    10. Piotr Dworczak & Scott Duke Kominers & Mohammad Akbarpour, 2021. "Redistribution Through Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1665-1698, July.
    11. Benistant, Julien & Galeotti, Fabio & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2022. "Competition, information, and the erosion of morals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 148-163.
    12. Akyel, Dominic, 2014. "Ökonomisierung und moralischer Wandel: Die Ausweitung von Marktbeziehungen als Prozess der moralischen Bewertung von Gütern," MPIfG Discussion Paper 14/13, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    13. Persson, Emil & Tinghög, Gustav, 2024. "Repugnant markets and preferences in public," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    14. Snorre Kverndokk, 2013. "Moral positions on tradable permit markets," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 22, pages 490-499, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Viola S. Ackfeld, 2020. "The Aversion to Monetary Incentives for Changing Behavior," Working Paper Series in Economics 100, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    16. Mozaffar Qizilbash, 2019. "The market, utilitarianism and the corruption argument," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 66(1), pages 37-55, March.
    17. Marina Della Giusta & Maria Laura Di Tommaso & Sarah Jewell & Francesca Bettio, 2021. "Quashing demand or changing clients? Evidence of criminalization of sex work in the United Kingdom," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(2), pages 527-544, October.
    18. Eyckmans, Johan & Kverndokk, Snorre, 2010. "Moral concerns on tradable pollution permits in international environmental agreements," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1814-1823, July.
    19. Sandro Ambuehl & Muriel Niederle & Alvin E. Roth, 2015. "More Money, More Problems? Can High Pay Be Coercive and Repugnant?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 357-360, May.
    20. Andreas Ostermaier & Dominik Aaken, 2020. "Freedom trumps profit: a liberal approach to business ethics," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(5), pages 947-962, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03714-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.