IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jqecon/v14y2016i2d10.1007_s40953-016-0035-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Organization of Surrogacy Contracts and Underinvestment

Author

Listed:
  • Amrita Pramanick

    (Jadavpur University)

  • Swapnendu Banerjee

    (Jadavpur University)

Abstract

We develop a theoretical model of commercial gestational surrogacy in which a childless couple approaches a prospective surrogate, who is willing to gestate for the couple. We use a Principal-Agent framework with continuous effort to argue the following: in presence of limited liability of the surrogate, provision of optimal incentives (under non-contractible effort) is not feasible. Hence, a surrogate facing low outside option and having limited wealth is always found to put in sub-optimal care for the fetus. Put differently, the surrogate cannot be made a residual claimant (cannot be entitled with custody rights of the fetus) and therefore eliciting first best care is never optimal. But this result dramatically changes when the model is cast in discrete effort where inefficiency is likely only when the surrogate faces low outside option whereas we get multiple efficient contracts for higher outside option. Moreover, we see first-best efficient contracts may be implemented even without full transfer of custody rights to the surrogate.

Suggested Citation

  • Amrita Pramanick & Swapnendu Banerjee, 2016. "Optimal Organization of Surrogacy Contracts and Underinvestment," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 14(2), pages 217-236, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jqecon:v:14:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40953-016-0035-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40953-016-0035-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40953-016-0035-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40953-016-0035-6?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gillian Hewitson, 1997. "The Market for Surrogate Motherhood Contracts," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 73(222), pages 212-224, September.
    2. repec:bla:ecorec:v:73:y:1997:i:222:p:212-24 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Banerjee, Swapnendu & Basu, Sanjay, 2009. "Rent a womb: Surrogate selection, investment incentives and contracting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 260-273, March.
    4. Abhijit V. Banerjee & Paul J. Gertler & Maitreesh Ghatak, 2002. "Empowerment and Efficiency: Tenancy Reform in West Bengal," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(2), pages 239-280, April.
    5. Swapnendu Banerjee, 2013. "Gestational Surrogacy Contracts: Altruistic Or Commercial? A Contract Theoretic Approach," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 81(3), pages 438-460, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Aragón, Fernando M., 2015. "Do better property rights improve local income?: Evidence from First Nations' treaties," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 43-56.
    2. Chaoran Chen, 2017. "Untitled Land, Occupational Choice, and Agricultural Productivity," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 91-121, October.
    3. Sonia Bhalotra & Abhishek Chakravarty & Dilip Mookherjee & Francisco J. Pino, 2019. "Property Rights and Gender Bias: Evidence from Land Reform in West Bengal," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 205-237, April.
    4. Chen, Shuo & Lan, Xiaohuan, 2020. "Tractor vs. animal: Rural reforms and technology adoption in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. Genesis T. Yengoh & Frederick Ato Armah & Edward Ebo Onumah, 2010. "Paths to Attaining Food Security: The Case of Cameroon," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, August.
    6. Bardhan, Pranab & Luca, Michael & Mookherjee, Dilip & Pino, Francisco, 2014. "Evolution of land distribution in West Bengal 1967–2004: Role of land reform and demographic changes," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 171-190.
    7. Christiano Arrigoni Coelho & Bruno Funchal, 2006. "Strategic Default And Personal Credit: The Brazilian Natural Experiment," Anais do XXXIV Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 34th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 97, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    8. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Kumar, Neha, 2014. "Land rights knowledge and conservation in rural Ethiopia: Mind the gender gap," IFPRI discussion papers 1386, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Mariapia MENDOLA, 2005. "Farm households production theories: a review of institutional and behavioural responses," Departmental Working Papers 2005-01, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    10. Santos, Florence & Fletschner, Diana & Savath, Vivien & Peterman, Amber, 2014. "Can Government-Allocated Land Contribute to Food Security? Intrahousehold Analysis of West Bengal’s Microplot Allocation Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 860-872.
    11. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2011. "Pillars of Prosperity: The Political Economics of Development Clusters," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9624.
    12. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing, 2007. "Land rental markets in the process of rural structural transformation : productivity and equity impacts in China," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4454, The World Bank.
    13. Negri, Mariano & Porto, Guido G., 2016. "Burley tobacco clubs in Malawi: Nonmarket institutions for exports," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 85-107.
    14. Cecchi, Francesco & Melesse, Mequanint Biset, 2016. "Formal law and customary change: A lab-in-field experiment in Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 67-85.
    15. Chaoran Chen & Diego Restuccia & Raül Santaeulàlia-Llopis, 2023. "Land Misallocation and Productivity," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 441-465, April.
    16. Das, Upasak, 2015. "Does Political Activism and Affiliation Affect Allocation of Benefits in the Rural Employment Guarantee Program: Evidence from West Bengal, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 202-217.
    17. Besley, Timothy & Leight, Jessica & Pande, Rohini & Rao, Vijayendra, 2016. "Long-run impacts of land regulation: Evidence from tenancy reform in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 72-87.
    18. Huffman, Wallace E & Just, Richard E, 2004. "Implications of Agency Theory for Optimal Land Tenure Contracts," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 617-642, April.
    19. Huang, Wei & Luo, Mi & Ta, Yuqi & Wang, Boxian, 2024. "Land expropriation, household behaviors, and health outcomes: Evidence from China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    20. Benson, Allison L., 2021. "From targeted private benefits to public goods: land, distributive politics and changing political conditions in Colombia," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112700, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Surrogate; Intended-parents; Surrogacy agency; Moral hazard;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General

    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:spr:jqecon:v:14:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40953-016-0035-6. 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: http://www.springer.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.