IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/amjhec/v4y2018i1p1-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tobacco Regulation and Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Should We Value Foregone Consumer Surplus?

Author

Listed:
  • Helen G. Levy

    (University of Michigan Institute for Social Research and NBER Author email: hlevy@umich.edu)

  • Edward C. Norton

    (University of Michigan School of Public Health and NBER)

  • Jeffrey A. Smith

    (University of Michigan, Department of Economics, NBER, and IZA)

Abstract

Recent tobacco regulations proposed by the Food and Drug Administration have raised a thorny question: how should the cost-benefit analysis accompanying such policies value foregone consumer surplus associated with regulation-induced reductions in smoking? In a model with rational and fully informed consumers, this question is straightforward. There is disagreement, however, about whether consumers are rational and fully informed, and the literature offers little practical guidance about what approach the FDA should use if they are not. In this paper, we outline the history of the FDA's recent attempts to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products and how they have valued foregone consumer surplus in cost-benefit analyses. We advocate replacing the approach used in most of this literature, which first calculates health gains associated with regulation and then “offsets” them by some factor reflecting consumer surplus losses, with a more general behavioral public finance framework for welfare analysis. This framework applies standard tools of welfare analysis to consumer demand that may be “biased” (that is, not necessarily rational and fully informed) without requiring specific assumptions about the reason for the bias. This framework would require estimates of both biased and unbiased consumer demand; we sketch an agenda to help develop these in the context of smoking. The use of this framework would substantially reduce the confusion currently surrounding welfare analysis of tobacco regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen G. Levy & Edward C. Norton & Jeffrey A. Smith, 2018. "Tobacco Regulation and Cost-Benefit Analysis: How Should We Value Foregone Consumer Surplus?," American Journal of Health Economics, MIT Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, Winter.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:amjhec:v:4:y:2018:i:1:p:1-25
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ajhe_a_00091
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cutler, David M. & Jessup, Amber & Kenkel, Donald & Starr, Martha A., 2015. "Valuing Regulations Affecting Addictive or Habitual Goods," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(02), pages 247-280, June.
    2. David M. Cutler & Jonathan Gruber & Raymond S. Hartman & Mary Beth Landrum & Joseph P. Newhouse & Meredith B. Rosenthal, 2002. "The Economic impacts of the tobacco settlement," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 1-19.
    3. Hunt Allcott & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2015. "Evaluating Behaviorally Motivated Policy: Experimental Evidence from the Lightbulb Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(8), pages 2501-2538, August.
    4. Elizabeth M. Ashley & Clark Nardinelli & Rosemarie A. Lavaty, 2015. "Estimating the Benefits of Public Health Policies that Reduce Harmful Consumption," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(5), pages 617-624, May.
    5. Lisa A. Robinson & James K. Hammitt, 2013. "Behavioral economics and the conduct of benefit–cost analysis: towards principles and standards," Chapters,in: Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 10, pages 317-363 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2013.301737_3 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Adler, Matthew D., 2016. "Behavioral Economics, Happiness Surveys, and Public Policy," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(01), pages 196-219, March.
    8. S. Dellavigna., 2011. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 5.
    9. Orphanides, Athanasios & Zervos, David, 1995. "Rational Addiction with Learning and Regret," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 739-758, August.
    10. Jin, Lawrence & Kenkel, Don & Liu, Feng & Wang, Hua, 2015. "Retrospective and Prospective Benefit-Cost Analyses of U.S. Anti-Smoking Policies," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(01), pages 154-186, March.
    11. Raj Chetty, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 1-33, May.
    12. Laux, Fritz L., 2000. "Addiction as a market failure: using rational addiction results to justify tobacco regulation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 421-437, July.
    13. Viscusi, W Kip, 1990. "Do Smokers Underestimate Risks?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1253-1269, December.
    14. Allcott, Hunt & Mullainathan, Sendhil & Taubinsky, Dmitry, 2014. "Energy policy with externalities and internalities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 72-88.
    15. Becker, Gary S & Murphy, Kevin M, 1988. "A Theory of Rational Addiction," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 675-700, August.
    16. Ian Irvine, 2015. "Graphic Warning Labels on Cigarette Packaging in Canada: A Targeted Commentary on our Limited State of Knowledge," Working Papers 15002, Concordia University, Department of Economics.
    17. Suranovic, Steven M. & Goldfarb, Robert S. & Leonard, Thomas C., 1999. "An economic theory of cigarette addiction," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-29, January.
    18. repec:hrv:faseco:34330194 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Gruber, Jonathan & Koszegi, Botond, 2004. "Tax incidence when individuals are time-inconsistent: the case of cigarette excise taxes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 1959-1987, August.
    20. Jonathan Gruber & Botond Köszegi, 2001. "Is Addiction "Rational"? Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(4), pages 1261-1303.
    21. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2007. "Harmful Addiction," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 147-172.
    22. David L. Weimer & Aidan R. Vining & Randall K. Thomas, 2009. "Cost-benefit analysis involving addictive goods: contingent valuation to estimate willingness-to-pay for smoking cessation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 181-202.
    23. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    24. W. Kip Viscusi & Jahn K Hakes, 2008. "Risk Beliefs And Smoking Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(1), pages 45-59, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Brent Gibbons’s journal round-up for 9th April 2018
      by brentgibbons in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2018-04-09 11:00:08

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:eme:aheszz:s0731-219920170000025005 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Philip DeCicca & Donald Kenkel & Feng Liu & Hua Wang, 2017. "Behavioral Welfare Economics and FDA Tobacco Regulations," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research,in: Human Capital and Health Behavior, volume 25, pages 143-179 Emerald Publishing Ltd.
    3. Donald S. Kenkel & Sida Peng & Michael F. Pesko & Hua Wang, 2017. "Mostly Harmless Regulation? Electronic Cigarettes, Public Policy and Consumer Welfare," NBER Working Papers 23710, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    regulation; smoking; cost-benefit; rational addiction; behavioral public finance;

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:tpr:amjhec:v:4:y:2018:i:1:p:1-25. 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: (Ann Olson). General contact details of provider: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/ .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.