Banning tobacco advertising: Can health economists contribute to the debate?

Godfrey, Christine

doi:10.1002/hec.4730020102

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effects of cigarette advertising on the demand for cigarettes and the effectiveness of related advertising restrictions have intrigued researchers and policymakers for quite some time Levin, 1986, 1992;Boyd and Seldon, 1990;Godfrey, 1993;Duffy, 1996;Saffer and Chaloupka, 2000;Gallet, 2003;Nelson, 2006;Capella et al, 2008). This concern has heightened in recent years as new revelations about the ill health effects of smoking have come to light (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Persistence of cigarette advertising across media and smoking rates

Goel

2011

Applied Economics Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article uses state-level US panel data to examine the effects of cigarette advertising on smoking. We disaggregate cigarette advertising into (1) print, (2) outdoor, (3) entertainment and (4) store. How does advertising persist over time across advertising media? Are there differences in effectiveness of advertising across different smoking rates? Results show that the price elasticity of cigarette demand is negative and within the range of recent estimates, whereas border price elasticities and income elasticities are positive. All elasticities, however, are uniquely sensitive to smoking rates, as is the effectiveness of the Master Settlement Agreement. Current aggregate advertising increases cigarette demand, whereas accompanying negative advertising takes hold in the third year. Upon disaggregation, current store advertising increases smoking in most cases. However, store advertising has a negative effect by the third year, especially in states with smoking rates at or above the median. Other advertising media have weak or no effects.

show abstract