Are menthol smokers different? An economic perspective

IF 1.8 4区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Southern Economic Journal Pub Date : 2023-11-11 DOI:10.1002/soej.12668
Yu‐Chun Elisa Cheng, Don Kenkel, Alan Mathios, Hua Wang
{"title":"Are menthol smokers different? An economic perspective","authors":"Yu‐Chun Elisa Cheng, Don Kenkel, Alan Mathios, Hua Wang","doi":"10.1002/soej.12668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract More than 18.5 million current smokers in the United States usually smoke menthol cigarettes. The Food and Drug Administration recently proposed a tobacco product standard to prohibit menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes. We explore whether there are internality‐based market failures that provide an applied welfare economics rationale to prohibit menthol. Our empirical approach provides descriptive evidence from the 2018 to 2019 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey on how menthol use is associated with smokers' market demand along multiple intensive and extensive margins. We also use measures of smoking‐related misinformation and internalities, and stated preference data, from a 2021 Cornell Online Survey. We acknowledge that the associations we document in observational data might reflect bias due to self‐selection into menthol use. We leave it to the reader whether there is convincing evidence that differential levels of internality‐based market failures are a sufficient justification for the proposed prohibition of menthol cigarettes.","PeriodicalId":47946,"journal":{"name":"Southern Economic Journal","volume":"3 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Southern Economic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12668","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract More than 18.5 million current smokers in the United States usually smoke menthol cigarettes. The Food and Drug Administration recently proposed a tobacco product standard to prohibit menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes. We explore whether there are internality‐based market failures that provide an applied welfare economics rationale to prohibit menthol. Our empirical approach provides descriptive evidence from the 2018 to 2019 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey on how menthol use is associated with smokers' market demand along multiple intensive and extensive margins. We also use measures of smoking‐related misinformation and internalities, and stated preference data, from a 2021 Cornell Online Survey. We acknowledge that the associations we document in observational data might reflect bias due to self‐selection into menthol use. We leave it to the reader whether there is convincing evidence that differential levels of internality‐based market failures are a sufficient justification for the proposed prohibition of menthol cigarettes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
薄荷吸烟者有什么不同吗?经济视角
在美国,超过1850万的吸烟者通常吸食薄荷香烟。美国食品和药物管理局最近提出了一项烟草产品标准,禁止薄荷醇作为香烟的特征香料。我们探索是否存在基于内在性的市场失灵,为禁止薄荷醇提供了应用福利经济学的理论依据。我们的实证方法提供了2018年至2019年《当前人口调查烟草使用补充报告》中的描述性证据,说明薄荷醇的使用与吸烟者的市场需求之间存在多重密集和广泛的关联。我们还使用了来自2021年康奈尔在线调查的与吸烟相关的错误信息和内在因素,以及陈述的偏好数据。我们承认,我们在观察数据中记录的关联可能反映了由于自我选择使用薄荷醇而产生的偏倚。我们留给读者的问题是,是否有令人信服的证据表明,基于内在性的市场失灵的不同程度是提议禁止薄荷香烟的充分理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
58
期刊最新文献
Theme park rides are Giffen goods The fourth industrial revolution and the future of work: Reasons to worry and policies to consider Exploring the corruption‐inefficiency nexus using an endogenous stochastic frontier analysis How the Federal Reserve got so huge, and why and how it can shrink The case for nominal GDP level targeting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1