A Nobel Prize-winning economist shows us why we have to deal in trade-offs when we can’t agree on what’s right and what’s wrong
Some of the most intractable controversies in our divided society are, at bottom, about what actions and transactions should be banned. Should women and couples be able to purchase contraception, access in vitro fertilization, and end pregnancy by obtaining an abortion? Should people be able to buy marijuana? What about fentanyl? Can someone be paid to donate blood plasma, or a kidney?
Disagreements are fierce because arguments on both sides are often made in uncompromising moral or religious terms. But in Moral Economics, Nobel Prize-winning economist Alvin E. Roth asserts that we can make progress on these and other difficult topics if we view them as markets—tools to help decide who gets what—and understand how those markets can be fine-tuned to be more functional. Markets don’t have to allow everything or ban everything. Prudent market design can find a balance between preserving people’s rights to pursue their own interests and protecting the most vulnerable from harm.
Combining Roth’s unparalleled expertise as market design pioneer with his incisive, witty accounts of complicated issues, Moral Economics offers a powerful and innovative new framework for resolving today’s hardest controversies.
Alvin Elliot Roth (born December 18, 1951) is an American academician personality, he is the Craig and Susan McCaw professor of economics at Stanford University and the Gund professor of economics and business administration emeritus at Harvard University.
Roth has made significant contributions to the fields of game theory, market design and experimental economics, and is known for his emphasis on applying economic theory to solutions for "real-world" problems.
In 2012, he won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences jointly with Lloyd Shapley "for the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design".
Informative primer on contemporary morally-fraught transactions, often delivered through analyses of some delightful past experiences (life imitates art, really; can you believe that Rhode island accidentally legalised indoor prostitution, leading to a reduction in sexual assaults and STI transmission?)
This work clearly demonstrates that Roth is an empiricist who believes that we should primarily engage with and judge morally grey markets through an outcomes-based lens. He makes this argument effectively and convincingly, but nonetheless doesn't quench a thirst for more thorough engagement with the moral substance of the markets and beliefs in question.
This book has a lot of strengths. I liked how it was organized into high-level sections, each with an introduction, and then divided into lower-level chapters. Roth covers a broad range of topics in a very thoughtful way, and without being preachy; instead calling for better information e.g., studies. I found some of the writing to be very witty but at other times less conversational than I usually like. Overall, this is a thought-provoking worthwhile read. Thank you to Netgalley and Basic Venture for the advance reader copy.
Продати нирку в Сполучених Штатах — злочин. Подарувати нирку незнайомцю — героїзм, про який знімає сюжет PBS. Медичний результат ідентичний: одна людина залишається з однією ниркою, інша отримує шанс жити. Уся різниця — у грошах і в тому почутті, яке вони вмикають у сторонніх спостерігачів. Це почуття має назву, і саме воно — головний герой цієї історії.