ArticlePolitics philosophy & economics2026
The ethics of selling shares in your future income.
Article in Politics philosophy & economics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Could private markets in shares in people's future earnings be morally permissible, or even desirable? While markets for personal debt are widespread, markets for shares in the future earnings of individuals are not. In this article, we argue that from a normative point of view, these markets are worth taking seriously. We begin by surveying their potential upsides and set out a baseline model of such a market that is moderately regulated, but has a plausible claim to being economically viable. We then critically examine its moral permissibility by identifying what (i) moral limits to markets and what (ii) distributive and (iii) relational egalitarian concerns it could give rise to. We advance two claims. First, that in sufficiently idealised circumstances, markets in shares in people's future earnings are not only morally permissible but are desirable and in several ways superior to markets in personal debt. Second, that in non-ideal circumstances, these markets can give rise to serious distributive and relational concerns that make them morally objectionable, but this does not imply that they should always be prohibited. We conclude that markets in shares in people's future earnings have potential as a complement to existing markets and modes of public provisioning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.