Repugnancy costs are costs borne by an individual or entity as a result of a stimulus that goes against that individual or entity's cultural mores.[1][2][3][4] The cost could be emotional, physical, mental or figurative. The stimulus could be anything from food to people to an idea.
These costs are perspective-dependent and individual. These costs may be different for different groups of people; countries, states, ethnicities, etc.[5] The term allows for a clear and understandable way of representing the concept of contextual stigma in a literal and applicable sense.
Repugnancy costs measure the degree of dislike toward a repugnant market or transaction by appealing to the concept of equalizing differences developed by Adam Smith: "What is the minimum compensation that we have to provide to an individual to be willing to allow a repugnant market or transaction?"
Repugnancy costs were first mentioned in a debate between Alvin Roth and Julio Elias on whether there should be an official market for kidneys.[6] The act of buying and selling organs may be against one's cultural mores; it may be repugnant. Hence, this is an additional cost one must bear if such a market was deemed repugnant in the context of one's culture.
In an experimental survey, Elias, Lacetera and Macis (2019) find that preferences for compensation have strong moral foundations; participants in the experiment especially reject direct payments by patients, which they find would violate principles of fairness.[7]
 | This economics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
