Skip to main content

Smoking bans and adverse selection

We’ve just got back from a couple of days in France. It was a good trip, but one thing is clear - smoking is a problem in France. I have nothing against people smoking if that’s what they choose to do. What I do have an issue with, is myself and my family having to ‘share’ in their smoking. And for a large part of our trip we had no choice but to share. In public spaces - train platforms, Christmas market, cafes etc. - you could argue it is not so disturbing to be constantly engulfed in cigarette smoke. But, when you cannot escape the smoke in your hotel and hotel bedroom then it starts to get a bit annoying.
    Smoking is, of course, banned in public places in France. And, there are lots of signs to remind people of this fact – the hotel was full of no smoking signs. Its just that the French appear to complete ignore the law. Indeed, during our visit a report was published by government auditors (Cours de Comptes) highlighting the seriousness of the problem – 1 in 3 French adults smoke, tobacco is the most common cause of avoidable death, and enforcement of the legislation is very poor. The report was headline news, but will anything change?
    Well, my purpose here is not to question how smoking can be reduced. Instead I want to talk about the danger of legislation that is not enforced. In the U.K. the ban on smoking in public places is enforced relatively well. If a person smokes in a hotel room then there is a significant probability of punishment. I recently heard, for instance, of someone staying in a hotel where the fire alarm went off in the middle of the night because another guest was smoking – the culprit was fined £100 and thrown out of the hotel. Such threats appear to work – smoking in British hotels does not seem a major problem. An enforced ban on smoking suits me, because I don’t have to put up with cigarette smoke. It is probably not so great for smokers. But, as with any negative externality, its impossible to find a solution that pleases everyone. Current legislation favours non-smokers and, as such, protects non-smokers relatively well.
    What’s happening in France is not about favouring one side over another – its a lot worse than that. To see why, think back to the days before any ban on smoking. Then firms had an incentive to offer a service for both smokers and non-smokers. Hotels, for example, had parts of the hotel with rooms for smokers and parts for non-smokers. This also suited me fine because I didn’t have to put up with a room smelling of cigarette smoke. It can also benefit smokers if smoking rooms having slightly lower demand. The only people that lose out are non-smoking employees that need to clean the rooms of smokers.
    Once a ban on smoking is imposed firms cannot discriminate between smokers and non-smokers. That clearly does nothing to help smokers. The main point, however, is that when the ban is not enforced it harms non-smokers: non-smokers have to put up with cigarette smoke because hotels no longer have the power to distinguish smokers from non-smokers. This can even lead to adverse-selection – non-smokers getting so annoyed that they spend less time in hotels. And employees are clearly no better off either if smokers carry on smoking as before. A non enforced ban on smoking, therefore, helps no one and positively harms non-smokers! 
    That’s not very clever. But, there is nothing special about smoking bans - any law that is not enforced has the potential to harm the very people it was designed to protect. And that clearly does nothing to motivate people to change their ways. It is, therefore, no surprise that smoking has increased in France since the smoking ban was put in place over five years ago. Until France starts enforcing the ban expect the proportion of smokers to increase further, not decrease!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Honesty around the world

In my last post I looked at dishonesty in the banking industry. Sticking with a similar theme, this time I will at dishonesty across different countries.        Let us start with a study by David Pascual-Ezama and a long list of co-authors on 'Context dependent cheating: Experimental evidence from 16 countries'. They asked 90 students in 16 different countries to perform a very simple task: toss a black and white coin and record the outcome. If the coin came up white the student obtained a red Lindt Lindor Truffle. If it came up black they got nothing. Crucially, the coin toss took place in private and so the student could report whatever outcome they wanted. If they wanted a chocolate then they simply had to report white. (The study contrasted three different methods of reporting - form put in a box, form given to the experimenter or verbally telling the experimenter - but I will skip those details here.)           The chart below summa...
Post a Comment
Read more

Prisoners dilemma or stag hunt

Over Christmas I had chance to read The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure by Brian Skyrms. A nice read, very interesting and thought provoking. There’s a couple of things in the book that prompt further discussion. The one I want to focus on in this post is the distinction between the stag hunt game and the prisoners dilemma game.    To be sure what we are talking about, here is a specific version of both type of game. Adam and Eve independently need to decide whether to cooperate or defect. The payoff matrix details their payoff for any combination of choices, where the first number is the payoff of Adam and the second number the payoff of Eve. For example, in the Prisoners Dilemma, if Adam cooperates and Eve defects then Adam gets 65 and Eve gets 165. Prisoners Dilemma Eve Cooperate Defect Adam Cooperate 140, 140 65, 165 Defect 165,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Measuring risk aversion the Holt and Laury way

Attitudes to risk are a key ingredient in most economic decision making. It is vital, therefore, that we have some understanding of the distribution of risk preferences in the population. And ideally we need a simple way of eliciting risk preferences that can be used in the lab or field. Charles Holt and Susan Laury set out one way of doing in this in their 2002 paper ' Risk aversion and incentive effects '. While plenty of other ways of measuring risk aversion have been devised over the years I think it is safe to say that the Holt and Laury approach is the most commonly used (as the near 4000 citations to their paper testifies).           The basic approach taken by Holt and Laury is to offer an individual 10 choices like those in the table below. For each of the 10 choices the individual has to go for option A or option B. Most people go for option A in choice 1. And everyone should go for option B in choice 10. At some point, therefore, we expect the...
Post a Comment
Read more