Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Valuing Regulations Affecting Addictive or Habitual Goods

  • David M. Cutler (a1), Amber Jessup (a2), Donald Kenkel (a3) and Martha A. Starr (a4)
Abstract

The analysis of regulations affecting addictive or habitual goods has drawn considerable controversy. Some studies have suggested that such regulations have only small welfare benefits, as consumers value these goods despite health benefits from quitting, while other studies suggest that information or behavioral problems make existing consumption decisions a poor guide to welfare evaluation. We examine potential utility offsets to health benefits of regulations affecting addictive or habitual goods theoretically and empirically. Our analysis focuses on individuals who consume these goods only, ignoring other social costs and benefits. Theoretically, we show the importance of several factors including: money saved in addition to health improvements; differentiating steady-state utility losses from short-term withdrawal costs; lack of utility loss for people dissuaded from starting to consume the good; and accounting for utility consequences of explicit or implicit cost increases. Our empirical analysis considers regulations that affect smoking. To measure the welfare cost of smoking cessation, we divide the population into those with more and less rational smoking behavior and use the valuation of smoking from more rational smokers to impute values of losses for less rational smokers. Our results show that the utility cost of smoking cessation is small relative to the health gains in people for whom withdrawal costs are the main utility loss of quitting, and even among people who have some ongoing loss, the utility offsets represent 20%–25% of the health gains. While marginal smokers induced to quit by regulations can be expected to have low or no steady-state loss, even this higher estimate is far below prevailing estimates of the utility cost of smoking used by the Food and Drug Administration and other analysts.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Valuing Regulations Affecting Addictive or Habitual Goods
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Valuing Regulations Affecting Addictive or Habitual Goods
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Valuing Regulations Affecting Addictive or Habitual Goods
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
*e-mail: dcutler@harvard.edu
References
Hide All
Arias, E.2010 United States life tables, 2009. National Vital Statistics Reports 62 (7). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Ashley, E. M., Nardinelli, C. & Lavaty, R. A. (2015). Estimating the Benefits of Public Health Policies that Reduce Harmful Consumption. Health Economics, 24(5), 617624.
Australian Productivity Commission2010. Gambling: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report.
Becker, G. & Murphy, K. (1988). A Theory of Rational Addiction. Journal of Political Economy, 96, 675700.
Bernheim, B. D. & Rangel, A. (2004). Addiction and Cue-Triggered Decision Processes. American Economic Review, 94(5), 15581590.
Carpenter, C. & Cook, P. (2008). Cigarette Taxes and Youth Smoking: New Evidence from National, State, and Local Youth Risk Behavior Surveys. Journal of Health Economics, 27, 287299.
Chaloupka, F. & Warner, K. (2000). The Economics of Smoking. In Culyer, A. & Newhouse, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Health Economics (Vol. IA, pp. 15391627). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.
Chaloupka, F., Warner, K., Acemoglu, D., Gruber, J., Laux, F., Max, W., Newhouse, J., Schelling, T. & Sindelar, J. (2015). An Evaluation of the FDA’s Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of the Graphic Warning Label Regulation. Tobacco Control, 24, 112119.
DeCicca, P., Kenkel, D. & Mathios, A. (2002). Putting Out the Fires: Will Higher Cigarette Taxes Reduce the Onset of Youth Smoking? Journal of Political Economy, 110, 144169.
DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315372.
Eissenberg, T. & Balster, R. (2000). Initial Tobacco Use Episodes in Children and Adolescents: Current Knowledge, Future Directions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 59, 4160.
Gallet, C. & List, J. (2003). Cigarette Demand: A Meta-Analysis of Elasticities. Health Economics, 12, 821835.
Gruber, J. & Köszegi, B. (2001). Is Addiction ‘Rational’? Theory and Evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 12611303.
Gruber, J. H. & Mullainathan, S. (2005). Do Cigarette Taxes Make Smokers Happier? Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 5(1), 143.
Hanmer, J., Lawrence, J., Anderson, J., Kaplan, R. & Fryback, D. (2006). Report of Nationally Representative Values for the Noninstitutionalized US Adult Population for 7 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 391400.
Hughes, J. R. (2006). Clinical Significance of Tobacco Withdrawal. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 8(2), 153156.
Hughes, J. R., Keely, J. & Naud, S. (2004). Shape of the Relapse Curve and Long-term Abstinence among Untreated Smokers. Addiction, 99(1), 2938.
Jia, H. & Lubetkin, E. (2010). Trends in Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Lost Contributed by Smoking and Obesity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(2), 138144.
Jin, L., Kenkel, D., Liu, F. & Wang, H. (2015). Retrospective and Prospective Benefit-Cost Analyses of U.S. Anti-Smoking Policies. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6, 154186.
Kenkel, D. (2000). Prevention. In Culyer, A. & Newhouse, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Health Economics (Vol. IA, pp. 16751720). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.
Laibson, D. (1997). Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443477.
Nonnemaker, J. & Farrelly, M. (2011). Smoking Initiation among Youth: The Role of Cigarette Excise Taxes and Prices by Race/Ethnicity and Gender. Journal of Health Economics, 30(3), 560567.
O’Connor, R., Kozlowski, L., Vandenbergh, D., Strasser, A., Grant, M. & Vogler, G. (2005). An Examination of Early Smoking Experiences and Smoking Status in a National Cross-sectional Sample. Addiction, 100, 13521357.
Orzechowski & Walker(2012). The Tax Burden on Tobacco: Historical Compilation (Vol. 47). Retrieved November 1, 2014, from http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/tobacco/papers/tax_burden_2012.pdf.
Oster, E., Dorsey, E. & Shoulson, I. (2013). Limited Life Expectancy, Human Capital and Health Investments. American Economic Review, 103(5), 19772002.
Piasecki, T., Piper, M. & Baker, T. (2010). Tobacco Dependence: Insights from Investigations of Self-Reported Motives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 395401.
Piper, M., Kenford, S., Fiore, M. & Baker, T. (2012). Smoking Cessation and Quality of Life: Changes in Life Satisfaction Over 3 Years Following a Quit Attempt. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43, 262270.
Robinson, L. & Hammitt, J. (2015). Valuing Reductions in Fatal Illness Risks: Implications of Recent Research. Health Economics; Published online: 30 June 2015 (doi:10.1002/hec.3214).
Sloan, F. A., Smith, V. K. & Taylor, D. H. (2003). The Smoking Puzzle: Education, Risk Perception, and Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sullivan, P., Lawrence, W. & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A National Catalog of Preference-Based Scores for Chronic Conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43(7), 736749.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2011). Quitting Smoking among Adults: United States, 2001–2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 60(44), 15131519.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012). Preventing Tobacco Use among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2004). Final Rule Declaring Dietary Supplements Containing Ephedrine Alkaloids Adulterated Because They Present an Unreasonable Risk. Federal Register, 69, 67886854.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2011). Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements, Final Rule. Federal Register, 76, 3662836777.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration(2014). Analysis of Impacts: Nutrition Facts/Serving Sized Combined PRIA. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/UCM385669.pdf.
U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse(2015). The Science of Drug Abuse and Addiction: The Basics, http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/media-guide/science-drug-abuse-addiction-basics, accessed 6/2/2015.
U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)(2013). Results from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables.
Vugrin, E., Rostron, B., Verzi, S., Brodsky, N., Brown, T., Choiniere, C., Coleman, B., Paredes, A. & Apelberg, B.(2015). Modeling the Potential Effects of New Tobacco Products and Policies: A Dynamic Population Model for Multiple Product Use and Harm. PlosOne; March 27.
Weimer, D., Vining, A. & Thomas, R. (2009). Cost-Benefit Analysis Involving Addictive Goods: Contingent Valuation to Estimate Willingness to Pay for Smoking Cessation. Health Economics, 18, 181202.
Zhou, X., Nonnemaker, J., Sherrill, B., Gilsenan, A., Coste, F. & West, R. (2009). Attempts to Quit Smoking and Relapse: Factors Associated with Success or Failure from the ATTEMPT Cohort Study. Addictive Behavior, 34(4), 365373.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
  • ISSN: 2194-5888
  • EISSN: 2152-2812
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed