April 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Authors' Committee


Matt Blackwell (Gov)


Martin Andersen (HealthPol)
Kevin Bartz (Stats)
Deirdre Bloome (Social Policy)
John Graves (HealthPol)
Rich Nielsen (Gov)
Maya Sen (Gov)
Gary King (Gov)

Weekly Research Workshop Sponsors

Alberto Abadie, Lee Fleming, Adam Glynn, Guido Imbens, Gary King, Arthur Spirling, Jamie Robins, Don Rubin, Chris Winship

Weekly Workshop Schedule

Recent Comments

Recent Entries



SMR Blog
Brad DeLong
Cognitive Daily
Complexity & Social Networks
Developing Intelligence
The Education Wonks
Empirical Legal Studies
Free Exchange
Health Care Economist
Junk Charts
Language Log
Law & Econ Prof Blog
Machine Learning (Theory)
Marginal Revolution
Mixing Memory
Mystery Pollster
New Economist
Political Arithmetik
Political Science Methods
Pure Pedantry
Science & Law Blog
Simon Jackman
Social Science++
Statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science



Powered by
Movable Type 4.24-en

« April 8, 2008 | Main | April 10, 2008 »

9 April 2008

Do Default Options Save Lives?

Via Dan Ariely's contribution to this Freakonomics post yesterday, I was lead to a fascinating paper on default options and behavior. The results on organ donation in Europe are particularly striking, as the authors show that large differences in organ donation rates in otherwise similar European nations (e.g. Sweeden and Denmark) may in large part be a consequence of whether organ donation is an opt-in or opt-out option on the drivers license application.

As the authors note, there are substantial public policy implications to research along these lines. For example here in the U.S., there is a growing chorus of policy gurus, including at least one major presidential candidate, pushing for policies such automatic retirement accounts. The idea is that rather than enacting more blunt mechanisms (e.g. mandates), we can implement policies that harness the inertia brought about by default options to achieve policy goals.

Update: In comments, Kieran Healy raises the important point that willingness to donate is not the same as actually donating, and that observed donation rates in European countries tend to be much closer together. Fair point!

However I would add that I'm not sure how helpful I find figure presented at the Crooked Timber link. The data points correspond to organ donation rates by year, but it's not a time series so there's no way to know which points correspond to which year. Furthermore, do all of these points correspond to only being on one side or the other of a change in informed consent law? Or did some of these countries change their informed consent policies during the 1990-2002 time frame? This would be important information to know, particularly if we're interested in whether these laws have any effect on actual organ donation. On my first glance at the paper provided I see that the same data are indeed put in a time series, but again I don't see any indication of when each country's policy was enacted and whether there were any shifts in policy during the study time frame. So, based on that it's hard to really make any kind of inference either way about whether the policies had no effect on actual donation rates.

For another take on this issue, here's a paper by IQSS member Alberto Abadie, which does find an effect of presumed consent laws. I'd be interested to hear Healy's take on this paper!

donor_default.jpg Posted by John Graves at 6:20 PM