Repugnancy costs

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 [Roth, Alvin E. (2007), "Repugnance as a constraint on markets," November, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 21 (3), Summer, pp. 37-58.] [Roth, Alvin E. (2007), "What Have We Learned From Market Design?," NBER Working Papers 13530, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.] . 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. The term allows for a clear and understandable way of representing the concept of contextual stigma in a literal and applicable sense.

Origin

Repugnancy costs were first mentioned in a debate between Alvin Roth and Julio Elias on whether there should be an official market for kidneys [Elias, Julio J. and Roth, Alvin E. (2007), [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118901049137818211.html "Econ One on One: A Market for Kidneys?"] The Wall Street Journal Online.] . The act of buying and selling organs may be against one's cultural mores; it may be repugnant. Hence, this is an additional costs one must bear if such a market was deemed repugnant in the context of one's culture.

References