IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v42y2025i4p863-882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy compatibility: How anti‐smoking policy shapes state vaping policy innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Seunghyun Kim

Abstract

Limited attention has been paid to how previous policies affect subsequent policy innovation. This article addresses this question by examining whether U.S. states with higher cigarette taxes are more likely to adopt e‐cigarette taxes and impose higher rates. The concept of policy compatibility, divided into normative and operational compatibility, is used to connect these policies. First, states with higher cigarette taxes are hypothesized to be more likely to adopt e‐cigarette taxes. This is because high cigarette tax rates indicate a preference for strong tobacco regulation, which is normatively compatible with regulating e‐cigarettes. States with high cigarette tax rates are also expected to choose high e‐cigarette tax rates. Such states, even if imposing higher e‐cigarette taxes, can maintain a similar or even larger price gap between cigarettes and e‐cigarettes, compared to those with low cigarette taxes. By doing so, they can not only reduce vaping effectively but also continuously provide smokers with a strong economic incentive to switch to e‐cigarettes. This indicates that such policies are operationally compatible with existing cigarette tax goals—reducing smoking and nicotine‐related health risks. The empirical findings support both hypotheses, offering insight into how past policies shape policy adoption. 鲜有研究聚焦于以往政策如何影响后续的政策创新。为研究该问题,本文分析了美国香烟税较高的州是否更有可能采用电子烟税并征收更高的税率。政策兼容性的概念(分为规范兼容性和操作兼容性)被用于将这些政策联系起来。首先,假设香烟税较高的州更有可能采用电子烟税。这是因为高香烟税率表明倾向于强有力的烟草监管,这与监管电子烟在规范上是兼容的。预计香烟税率高的州也会选择高的电子烟税率。与香烟税较低的州相比,前者即使征收更高的电子烟税,也能保持香烟和电子烟之间的价格差距相似甚至更大。这样,它们不仅能有效减少香烟消费,还能持续为吸烟者提供强大的经济激励来转而抽电子烟。这表明,此类政策在操作上与现有的香烟税目标相兼容,即减少吸烟和尼古丁相关的健康风险。实证研究结果支持这两种假设,并为“理解以往政策如何影响政策采纳”一事提供了见解。 Se ha prestado poca atención a la manera en que las políticas anteriores afectan a la innovación política posterior. Este artículo aborda esta cuestión examinando si los estados de EE. UU. con impuestos más altos a los cigarrillos tienen más probabilidades de adoptar impuestos a los cigarrillos electrónicos e imponer tasas más altas. El concepto de compatibilidad de políticas, dividido en compatibilidad normativa y operativa, se utiliza para conectar estas políticas. En primer lugar, se plantea la hipótesis de que los estados con impuestos más altos a los cigarrillos tienen más probabilidades de adoptar impuestos a los cigarrillos electrónicos. Esto se debe a que las altas tasas impositivas a los cigarrillos indican una preferencia por una fuerte regulación del tabaco, que es normativamente compatible con la regulación de los cigarrillos electrónicos. También se espera que los estados con altas tasas impositivas a los cigarrillos electrónicos elijan altas tasas impositivas a los cigarrillos electrónicos. Dichos estados, incluso si imponen impuestos más altos a los cigarrillos electrónicos, pueden mantener una brecha de precios similar o incluso mayor entre los cigarrillos y los cigarrillos electrónicos, en comparación con aquellos con impuestos bajos a los cigarrillos. Al hacerlo, no solo pueden reducir el vapeo de manera efectiva, sino también proporcionar continuamente a los fumadores un fuerte incentivo económico para cambiar a los cigarrillos electrónicos. Esto indica que dichas políticas son compatibles operativamente con los objetivos actuales de los impuestos al cigarrillo, es decir, reducir los riesgos para la salud relacionados con el tabaquismo y la nicotina. Los hallazgos empíricos respaldan ambas hipótesis y ofrecen una perspectiva de cómo las políticas pasadas influyen en la adopción de políticas.

Suggested Citation

  • Seunghyun Kim, 2025. "Policy compatibility: How anti‐smoking policy shapes state vaping policy innovation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 42(4), pages 863-882, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:4:p:863-882
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12636
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12636?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:4:p:863-882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.