Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:40:10.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Law and Economics of Grindr: A Response to Carson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jonathan Hardman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the Winter 2017 edition of JLME, Dr. Carson outlined an economic approach to the epidemiology of HIV transmission within the gay community, with a special emphasis on mobile apps. His conclusion is that HIV transmission amongst the gay community constitutes a collective action problem, which is resolved by the social norm of using a condom. This article critiques Dr. Carson's approach from an economic perspective. By utilizing classic law and economic theory, this article will argue that HIV transmission may not, in fact, constitute a collective action problem in economic terms, and that instead condom use as a method of disease protection in theory can arise from purely rational, market driven actions. To do so, it borrows from transactional theory of information asymmetry to show the potential to alert counterparts as to serostatus. This conclusion provides an important supplement to Carson: rather than social norms being the core driver in condom usage to prevent HIV, instead condom use may arise solely as a result of rational, private decision making arising from market signaling. The article then critiques its own findings to demonstrate that it is unclear whether Carson's argument or the argument in this paper is, indeed, correct — which may represent a limitation in the analytical techniques advanced.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 47 , Issue 3: Biomarker Research and Validation: Current Challenges, Future Opportunities , Fall 2019 , pp. 445 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carson, B., “The Informal Norms of HIV Prevention: The Emergence and Erosion of the Condom Code,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 45, no. 4 (2017): 518–530.Google Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 519.Google Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 519.Google Scholar
See Cohen, L., “Holdouts and Free Riders,” The Journal of Legal Studies 20, no. 2 (1991): 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 520.Google Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 521.Google Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 522.Google Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 524.Google Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 525.Google Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 525.Google Scholar
For example, law and economics can be divided into positive (which identifies efficiencies in existing legal norms) and normative (which proposes amendments to legal rules based on economic principles).Google Scholar
For terminology — see Schwab, S., “A Coasean Experiment in Contract Presumptions,” Journal of Legal Studies 17, no. 2 (1988): 237–268 at 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
This paper refers to it as “Coasean” based on the “Coase Theorem” that, in the absence of transaction costs, initial allocation of rules does not affect the efficiency of bargains struck (see Coase, R. H., “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of Law and Economics 3, no. 1 (1960): 1-44. The term “Coase Theorem” was, however, initially formulated by G. Stigler — see Schwab, S., “Coase Defends Coase: Why Lawyers Listen and Economists Do Not,” Michigan Law Review 87, no. 6 (1989): 1171-1198 at 1173. This can be formulated as a strong version (that market participants make efficient choices regardless of legal rules) and a weak version (that legal rules do not make a difference to the choices that are made) — S. Schwab, supra note 12 at 242-243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Coase, supra note 13 at 15-19.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A., Economic Analysis of the Law 5th ed. (New York: Aspen, 1998) at 27.Google Scholar
Ellickson, R. C., Order Without Law: How Neighbours Settle Disputes (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1991), Chapters 7 – 9 and Posner, E. A., Law and Social Norms (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2005), Chapter 2.Google Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 518–519.Google Scholar
See generally Peterson, M., ed., The Prisoners' Dilemma (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The typical iteration will be utilized and is taken from Poundstone, W., Prisoners' Dilemma: John Von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of the Bomb (New York: Doubleday, 1992) at 132.Google Scholar
It can mean a result in which all parties are better off (a Pareto improvement) or a result in which the parties in aggregate are better off, allowing for individual actors to be harmed by the process so long as the gain of other parties is greater than the loss (Kaldor-Hicks efficiency) — see Hardman, J., “Some Legal Determinants of Finance in Scotland: A Response to Lord Hodge,” Edinburgh Law Review 21, no. 1 (2017): 30–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See McAdams, R. H., “The Origin, Development and Regulation of Norms,” Michigan Law Review 96, no. 2 (1997): 338–433 and Ellickson, supra note 16.Google Scholar
Which arose from a 1833 pamphlet but was made famous by a 1960s ecology article — Hardin, G., “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162 (1968): 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipson, T. J. and Posner, R. A., Private Choices and Public Health: The AIDS Epidemic in an Economic Perspective (Harvard: Harvard University Press 1993) at Chapters 2, 3, and 4.Google Scholar
See Mohr, R. D., Gays/Justice: A Study of Ethics, Society, and Law (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988) at 232.Google Scholar
Philipson and Poser, supra note 23 at 33.Google Scholar
Philipson and Poser, supra note 23 at 38–40.Google Scholar
Philipson and Poser, supra note 23 at 91.Google Scholar
The logic is that those with a higher chance of having HIV will evade mandatory testing or alternatives, which will in turn produce more HIV negative results than exist within the population which will skew people's perception of P1 (and therefore the risks of contracting HIV through unprotected sex) to be lower than the reality, Philipson and Poser, supra note 23 at 130–137. Similarly, taxing people who have HIV more will result in fewer people being tested, Philipson and Poser, supra note 23 at 147.Google Scholar
Philipson and Poser, supra note 23 at 35–36.Google Scholar
Schroeder, K. D. and Rojas, F. G., “A Game Theoretical Analysis of Sexually Transmitted Disease Epidemics,” Rationality and Society 14, no. 3 (2002): 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder and Rojas, supra note 30 at 365.Google Scholar
Schroeder and Rojas, supra note 30 at 370–379.Google Scholar
Francis, A. M. and Mialon, H. M., “The Optimal Penalty for Sexually Transmitting HIV,” American Law and Economics Review 19, no. 2 (2008): 388-423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis and Mialon, supra note 33 at 390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, C., Riviere, C. A., and Morel, J., “Grindr Casual Hook-Ups as Interactional Achievements,” New Media & Society 18, no. 11 (2016): 2540-2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 526.Google Scholar
Akerlof, G. A., “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84, no. 3 (1970): 488-500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akerlof, supra note 37 at 489.Google Scholar
Akerlof, supra note 37 at 492–493.Google Scholar
See Kann, L., Anderson, J. E., Holtzman, D., Ross, J., Truman, B. I., Collins, J., and Kolbe, J. L., “HIV Related Knowledge, Beliefs and Behaviours among High School Students in the United States: Results from a National Survey,” Journal of School Health 61, no. 9 (1991): 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
This is, of course, not the case — see Muñoz-Perez, M.A., Rodrigues-Pichardo, A., and Camacho Martinez, F., “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in 1161 HIV-Positive Patients: A 38-Month Prospective Study in Southern Spain,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 11, no. 3 (1998): 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Once more this is, of course, not the case — see Dyer, O., “New HIV Strain Drives Growing Philippines Epidemic,” British Medical Journal 360 (2018): k1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
It cannot be stressed enough that this is limited entirely to the economic market assumptions outlined and is not a more general statement intended for any wider application than the analogy advanced.Google Scholar
Carson, supra note 1 at 523.Google Scholar
See Betancourt, T., Abrams, E., McBain, R., and Fawzi, M., “Family-Centred Approaches to the Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission of HIV,” Journal of the International AIDS Society 13 (2010): s2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Moore, A., Herrera, G., Nyamongo, J. and others, “Estimated Risk of HIV Transmission by Blood Transfusion in Kenya,” The Lancet 358 (2001): 657-660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Valente, T. W. and Vlahov, D., “Selective Risk Taking among Needle Exchange Participants: Implications for Supplemental Interventions,” American Journal of Public Health 91, no. 3 (2001): 406–411.Google Scholar
Francis, A M and Mialon, H M, “Tolerance and HIV,” Journal of Health Economics 29, no. 2 (2010): 250-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akerloff indicates that using a “brand” or a chain of entities is a way to avoid the market for lemons as it provides a signal of quality. However, in the case of repeated non-exclusive UAI, the fact that a counterparty was HIV negative on a previous occasion is no indication of their current serostatus, although it may seems to a market participant that it is. This may result in them significantly underestimating P1 when it comes to a regular but non-exclusive sexual partner — a complication which is avoided by instead concentrating on the one-off transactional aspects of hook-ups.Google Scholar
See Goodreau, S. M., Goicochea, L. P., and Sanchez, J., “Sexual Role and Transmission of HIV Type 1 among Men who Have Sex with Men in Peru,” Journal of Infectious Diseases 191, no. s1 (2005): 145-158.Google Scholar
See Yoshimura, K., “Current Status of HIV/AIDS in the ART era,” Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy 23 (2016):12-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Spinner, C. D., Boesecke, C., Zink, A. and others, “HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP): A Review of Current Knowledge and Oral Systemic HIV PrEP in Humans,” Infection 44, no. 2 (2016): 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Hardman, supra note 20.Google Scholar
The argument proceeds on the basis that she probably won't die and will only face discomfort. However, the effect of granting her relief would be to prevent other lenders from moving to the mortgage market for old widows, which will mean that it is less likely that old widows would be able to get mortgages, which reduces optionality for old widows and is not in their interest as a class. As the evicted widow falls within that category, it is in her own interest to be evicted — Leff, A. A., “Economic Analysis of Law: Some Realism about Nominalism,” Virginia Law Review 60, no. 3 (1974): 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar