[g1313]

This is risky. Some prior research has shown that incentives can sometimes backfire, such as when it comes to doing things for the good of others. 

https://hbr.org/2009/03/when-economic-in...s-backfire

True, and this phenomenon was explored in the Freakonomics book which was co-written by the same economist who made the above lottery proposal. However a few reasons it may not apply:

1) Apparently the seminal study on blood donations and incentives by Titmuss in 1970 was not actually an empirical study, it was theorized based on survey results. Many of the follow up studies also suffer from this - they ask someone how willing they are SAY that they will donate blood with or without an incentive, but they don't actually see whether someone actually donates blood. 

2) In addition, the Titmuss study is not directly applicable to COVID testing. He actually did not argue that paying for blood donations would DECREASE the blood supply, he only argued that it would not INCREASE relative to the cost of paying, and also the quality of the blood supply would decrease (because people who are donate blood just for money could be more likely to use IV drugs, for example). For COVID testing, any test is in theory a good test.

3) I found some other follow up studies that suggested that it's specifically direct cash payment that makes people feel weird about blood donations, but if you abstract the financial incentive in some way (as with a lottery, or a voucher) then that effect diminishes. (https://freakonomics.com/2013/06/05/is-p...after-all/ and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...7010000735)

[g1313]

This is risky. Some prior research has shown that incentives can sometimes backfire, such as when it comes to doing things for the good of others. 

https://hbr.org/2009/03/when-economic-in...s-backfire

True, and this phenomenon was explored in the Freakonomics book which was co-written by the same economist who made the above lottery proposal. However a few reasons it may not apply:

1) Apparently the seminal study on blood donations and incentives by Titmuss in 1970 was not actually an empirical study, it was theorized based on survey results. Many of the follow up studies also suffer from this - they ask someone how willing they are SAY that they will donate blood with or without an incentive, but they don't actually see whether someone actually donates blood. 

2) In addition, the Titmuss study is not directly applicable to COVID testing. He actually did not argue that paying for blood donations would DECREASE the blood supply, he only argued that it would not INCREASE relative to the cost of paying, and also the quality of the blood supply would decrease (because people who are donate blood just for money could be more likely to use IV drugs, for example). For COVID testing, any test is in theory a good test.

3) I found some other follow up studies that suggested that it's specifically direct cash payment that makes people feel weird about blood donations, but if you abstract the financial incentive in some way (as with a lottery, or a voucher) then that effect diminishes. (https://freakonomics.com/2013/06/05/is-p...after-all/ and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...7010000735)