Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:50:51.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lowering the bucks for the bang: viewing pharmaceutical price negotiations through a behavioural lens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2019

ADAM OLIVER
ADAM OLIVER*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
*
*Correspondence to: Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, LondonWC2A 2AE, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is a speculative perspective on the behavioural factors that may influence price negotiations between pharmaceutical ‘buyers’ and ‘sellers’. It is contended that several behavioural economic-related phenomena may affect price negotiations, including anchoring, loss aversion, a tendency (or otherwise) to reciprocate and a concern for one's reputation. The most important influence, however, is likely to be anchoring, which will particularly benefit the seller of a product if they are allowed to set the initial anchor in a price negotiation. Consequently, it is argued that the most effective way in which to counter the seller's anchor is likely to be to regulate so that the buyer makes the first offer.

Type
Article
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 417 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Akerlof, G. A. (1970), ‘The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality, Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84: 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akerlof, G. A. and Shiller, R. J. (2015), Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (2003), ‘‘Coherent Arbitrariness.’ Stable Demand Curves without Stable Preferences’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118: 73–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behavioural Insights Team (2013), Applying Behavioural Insights to Organ Donation: Preliminary Results from a Randomised Controlled Trial, London: Behavioural Insights Team.Google Scholar
Bevan, G. and Fasolo, B. (2013), ‘Models of Governance of Public Services: Empirical and Behavioural Analysis of Econs and Humans’, In: Oliver, A. (ed.) Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 38–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, G., Evans, A. and Nuti, S. (2019), ‘Reputations Count: Why Benchmarking Performance is Improving Health Care across the World’, Health Economics, Policy and Law, 14: Forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galinsky, A. D. and Mussweiler, T. (2001), ‘First Offers as Anchors: The Role of Perspective-Taking and Negotiator Focus’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 657–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertwig, R. (2017), ‘When to Consider Boosting: Some Rules for Policy-Makers’, Behavioural Public Policy, 1: 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk’, Econometrica, 47: 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollock, P. (1994), ‘The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment, and Trust’, American Journal of Sociology, 100: 313–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., and Slovic, P. (1971), ‘Reversals of Preference between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89: 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1973), ‘Response-Induced Reversals of Preference in Gambling: An Extended Replication in Las Vegas’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101: 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, A. (2013), ‘From Nudging to Budging: Using Behavioural Economics to Inform Public Sector Policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 42: 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, A. (2015), ‘Nudging, Shoving and Budging: Behavioural Economic-Informed Policy’, Public Administration, 93: 700–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1983), ‘Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective’, American Economic Review, 73: 596–605.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), ‘Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Biases in Judgments Reveal Some Heuristics of Thinking Under Uncertainty’, Science, 185: 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992), ‘Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5: 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar