Smoking in Restaurants: Who Best to Set the House Rules?
Alamar and Glantz interpret smoking in restaurants as a market failure, and they claim that restaurants should welcome government laws that disallow smoking in all restaurants. Contrary to their claims, restaurant owners do have an incentive to eliminate smoking if doing so raises the value of their restaurants. In restaurants, smokers do not impose negative externalities on non-smokers because restaurant owners have well-defined property rights that cause them to internalize the costs and benefits of smoking. Alamar and Glantz claim to show that non-smoking ordinances increase the capital value of restaurants, but their own data do not, in fact, show that. Finally, if it were true that eliminating smoking in restaurants raises the value of restaurants, then the proper approach would be, not to coerce restaurant owners, but to inform them of that fact.
Volume (Year): 4 (2007)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (703) 993-1151
Web page: http://econjwatch.org/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:4:y:2007:i:3:p:284-291. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jason Briggeman)The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Jason Briggeman to update the entry or send us the correct address
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.