The impact of public smoking bans on well‐being externalities: Evidence from a policy experiment
| Published date | 01 July 2018 |
| Author | Miaoqing Yang,Eugenio Zucchelli |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/sjpe.12150 |
| Date | 01 July 2018 |
THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC SMOKING
BANS ON WELL-BEING
EXTERNALITIES: EVIDENCE
FROM A POLICY EXPERIMENT
Miaoqing Yang* and Eugenio Zucchelli**
ABSTRACT
Recent studies on the effects of anti-smoking policies on subjective well-being
present mixed results and do not account for potential externalities, especially
among couples. We contribute to the literature by evaluating the impact of
smoking bans on well-being externalities among smokers and non-smokers as
well as couples of different types of smokers. We exploit the policy experiment
provided by the timing of the UK public smoking bans and measure well-being
via the GHQ. We employ matching techniques combined with flexible difference-
in-differences fixed effects panel data models on data from the British Household
Panel Survey. The joint use of matching with fixed effects specifications allows
building more comparable treatment and control groups, producing less model-
dependent results and accounting for individual-level unobserved heterogeneity.
We find that public smoking bans appear to have a statistically significant short-
term positive impact on the well-being of married individuals, especially among
women with dependent children. These effects appear to be robust to alternative
specifications and placebo tests and are discussed in the light of the economic
theory and recent evidence.
II
NTRODUCTION
Smoking is still the leading cause of avoidable mortality and morbidity in all
developed countries and a growing public health concern among developing
countries. According to the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic
(2013), smoking is directly linked to 6 million deaths every year worldwide.
The 32nd Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health (US Department
of Health and Human Services, 2014) finds that smoking increases the risk of
cancer (e.g. lung, liver and colorectal cancers), respiratory infections [e.g.
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and tuberculosis] and cardio-
vascular diseases. The same report also finds that women’s risk of dying from
*RAND Europe
**Lancaster University
Scottish Journal of Political Economy, DOI: 10.1111/sjpe.12150, Vol. 65, No. 3, July 2018
©2017 Scottish Economic Society.
224
smoking has tripled during the last 50 years and is now equal to men’s risk;
tobacco smoke causes 8 out of 10 cases of COPD; and maternal smoking and
exposure to second-hand smoke reduces fertility and is linked to pregnancy
complications, low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome.
During the last two decades, tobacco control policies such as smoking bans
and increases in excise taxes have been implemented with the aim of reducing
the effects of both second-hand smoke (SHS) and cigarette consumption. A
large body of empirical research has analysed the impact of anti-tobacco poli-
cies. These studies mainly focus on the effects of tobacco control interventions
on passive smoking (Farrelly et al., 2005; Pearson et al., 2009); self-assessed
health (Wildman and Hollingsworth, 2013; Kuehnle and Wunder, 2017);
specific health conditions such as pulmonary disease (Menzies et al., 2006;
Goodman et al., 2007) and myocardial infarction (Sargent et al., 2004; Seo
and Torabi, 2007); as well as active smoking (cigarette consumption) (Anger
et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2013).
1
Overall, these suggest that smoking bans
appear to reduce both exposure to SHS and the incidence of acute myocardial
infarction, while also increasing general self-assessed health among non-smo-
kers. However, their effects on tobacco consumption appear to be limited to
specific population sub-groups such as individuals who often go to bars and
restaurants or heavy smokers (Anger et al., 2011; Irvine and Nguyen, 2011;
Jones et al., 2013). Although these papers focus on the direct consequences of
anti-smoking policies on smoking behaviour and physical health, they do not
appear to account explicitly for the presence of potential externalities on
important measures of individual welfare such as subjective well-being
(SWB).
2
Subjective well-being and its measurement are now central to public policy
as a number of governments worldwide are increasingly concerned with the
use of well-being measures to inform and appraise policy interventions (Dolan
and Metcalfe, 2012). Expected potential gains and losses of SWB could be
employed as an additional tool to rank policy options across different
domains or aid the allocation of resources towards policies with the largest
expected improvements in SWB relative to their costs (Dolan and White,
2007; Dolan and Metcalf, 2008).
While an emerging stream of research has started examining the impact of
smoking bans on SWB, results still appear to be mixed. Brodeur (2013)
employed US data and found that smokers who do not quit smoking after
1
For a comprehensive review of studies on the effects of partial and total smoking bans
on second-hand smoke (in both public and private places such as cars and private homes),
tobacco consumption and a number of health conditions, see Callinan et al. (2010).
2
A related strand of research has focused on the potential unintended consequences of
anti-smoking interventions. Adams and Cotti (2008) found that in the US local and state
public smoking bans may increase the risk of fatal car accidents due to drunk driving by
leading smokers to drive longer distances to reach bars in neighbouring jurisdictions allowing
them to smoke. Using biomarkers (cotinine) for tobacco intake, Adda and Cornaglia (2010)
showed that by displacing smokers from public to private places, public smoking bans may
increase the exposure to passive smoking of young children living with smokers. A subse-
quent study of Carpenter et al. (2011) employing self-reported data on smoking, however,
found limited evidence of smoking bans causing displacement from public to private places.
SMOKING BANS AND WELL-BEING EXTERNALITIES 225
Scottish Journal of Political Economy
©2017 Scottish Economic Society
To continue reading
Request your trial