IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uwarer/270219.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

E-Cigarettes: The Extent and Impact of Complementary Dual-Use

Author

Listed:
  • Doyle, Chris
  • Ronayne, David
  • Sgroi, Daniel

Abstract

The highly controversial e-cigarette industry has generated considerable policy debate and mixed regulatory responses worldwide. Surprisingly, an issue that has been largely ignored is the categorisation of e-cigarettes as substitutes or (dynamic) complements for conventional smoking. We conduct an online survey of US participants finding that 37% of e-cigarette users view them primarily as complementary. We use this result along-side publicly available data to calibrate a cost-benefit analysis, estimating that complementarity reduces the potential costsavings of e-cigarettes by as much as 57% (or $3.3-4.9bn p.a.) relative to case with zero complementarity.

Suggested Citation

  • Doyle, Chris & Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel, 2015. "E-Cigarettes: The Extent and Impact of Complementary Dual-Use," Economic Research Papers 270219, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uwarer:270219
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.270219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/270219/files/twerp_1064_doyle.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/270219/files/twerp_1064_doyle.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.270219?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    2. Oecd, 2014. "Intergovernmental organisation activities," Nuclear Law Bulletin, OECD Publishing, vol. 2014(1), pages 113-121.
    3. Steve Berry & Ahmed Khwaja & Vineet Kumar & Andres Musalem & Kenneth Wilbur & Greg Allenby & Bharat Anand & Pradeep Chintagunta & W. Hanemann & Przemek Jeziorski & Angelo Mele, 2014. "Structural models of complementary choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 245-256, September.
    4. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:48-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    7. Oecd, 2015. "Intergovernmental organisation activities," Nuclear Law Bulletin, OECD Publishing, vol. 2014(2), pages 133-142.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Ronayne & Daniel Sgroi, 2018. "On the motivations for the dual-use of electronic and traditional cigarettes," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(12), pages 830-834, July.
    2. Lefgren, Lars J. & Sims, David P. & Stoddard, Olga B., 2016. "Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 89-97.
    3. Fehr, Dietmar & Vollmann, Martin, 2020. "Misperceiving Economic Success: Experimental Evidence on Meritocratic Beliefs and Inequality Acceptance," Working Papers 0695, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    4. Chirvi, Malte & Schneider, Cornelius, 2020. "Preferences for wealth taxation: Design, framing and the role of partisanship," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 260, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    5. Tella, Rafael Di & Rotemberg, Julio J., 2018. "Populism and the return of the “Paranoid Style”: Some evidence and a simple model of demand for incompetence as insurance against elite betrayal," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 988-1005.
    6. Chirvi, Malte & Schneider, Cornelius, 2019. "Stated preferences for capital taxation - tax design, misinformation and the role of partisanship," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 242, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    7. Cherry, Todd L. & McEvoy, David M. & Westskog, Hege, 2019. "Cultural worldviews, institutional rules and the willingness to participate in green energy programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 28-38.
    8. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    9. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    10. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    11. Guenther, Isabel & Tetteh-Baah, Samuel Kofi, 2019. "The impact of discrimination on redistributive preferences and productivity: experimental evidence from the United States," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203652, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. Pichler, S,; & Ziebarth, N.R,;, 2015. "The Pros and Cons of Sick Pay Schemes: A Method to Test for Contagious Presenteeism and Shirking Behavior," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 15/03, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    13. Matthew C. Weinzierl, 2016. "A Welfarist Role for Nonwelfarist Rules: An example with envy," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-021, Harvard Business School, revised Jul 2017.
    14. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    15. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    16. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Atalay, Kadir & Bakhtiar, Fayzan & Cheung, Stephen & Slonim, Robert, 2014. "Savings and prize-linked savings accounts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 86-106.
    18. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    19. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.
    20. Eiji Yamamura & Yoshiro Tsustsui, 2021. "School closures and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(4), pages 1261-1298, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Financial Economics;

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco

    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:ags:uwarer:270219. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/ .

    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.