Much Ado About Nothing? Smoking Bans and Germany’s Hospitality Industry

Kvasnicka, Michael; Tauchmann, Harald

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1593026

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The magnitude of the estimated effect in bars (-15%), however, is rather moderate, which suggests that any adverse consequences for revenues and profits of these businesses are likely to have been rather limited. This reading of this result is consistent with the findings of Ahlfeldt and Maenning (2009) and Kvasnicka and Tauchmann (2010) who studied sales data of the hospitality industry in Germany.…”

Section: F Ed Tsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Maenning (2009) and Kvasnicka and Tauchmann (2010) for Germany, do find evidence that public smoking bans in these countries harmed businesses in the hospitality industry. Furthermore, and more generally, none of the existing studies (US and non-US) has investigated the very customer behavior of smokers, that is the prime (treatment) group potentially affected by smoking bans.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public Smoking Bans, Youth Access Laws, and Cigarette Sales at Vending Machines

Kvasnicka

2010

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: F Ed Tsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Smoking Bans, Youth Access Laws, and Cigarette Sales at Vending Machines

Kvasnicka

2010

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here Jimenez and Labeaga (1994), Decker and Schwartz (2000), Cameron and Williams (2001), Zhao and Harris (2004), and Picone et al (2004) 2 may serve as representative examples of the respec-1 Focussing on revenues of pubs and bars as a rough measure of alcohol consumption, recent empirical evidence for Germany does not point at any significant impact of smoking bans on drinking (Ahlfeldt and Maenning, 2010) or finds just a small decreasing effect on alcohol consumption (Kvasnicka and Tauchmann, 2012). Yet, by completely ignoring home consumption, these analyses might provide a rather incomplete picture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tobacco and alcohol: complements or substitutes?

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe question of whether alcohol and tobacco are consumed as complements or substitutes is crucial for determining the side-effects of anti-smoking policies. Numerous papers have empirically addressed this issue by estimating demand systems for alcohol and tobacco and subsequently calculating cross-price effects. However, this traditional approach is often seriously hampered by insufficient price variation observed in survey data. We therefore suggest an alternative instrumental variables approach that statistically mimics an experimental study and does not rely on prices as explanatory variables. This approach is applied using German survey data. Our estimation results suggest that a reduction in tobacco consumption results in a moderate reduction in alcohol consumption. It is demonstrated that this implies that alcohol and tobacco are complements. Hence, we conclude that successful anti-smoking policies will not result in the unintended side-effect of an increased (ab)use of alcohol. complements or substitutes interdependence in consumption tobacco and alcohol insufficient price-variation instrumental variables approach JEL Classification C31 · D12 · I12

show abstract

“…The federal government structure and direct democratic participation in non-smokers protection legislation produced a diversity of local smoking bans and exemptions in Germany. Several studies investigated the effect of smoking bans in Germany [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ], but the impact of the latest amendments by which some federal states of Germany created stricter smoke-free laws have yet to be assessed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoke-Free Laws and Direct Democracy Initiatives on Smoking Bans in Germany: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Assessment

Köhler

Minkner

2014

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Germany’s 16 states regulate smoking differently within health protection principles laid down in the federal law. All state smoke-free laws in Germany have undergone at least one change since taking effect. Methods: We systematically review federal and state laws regulating smoking, as well as petitions, popular initiatives and referenda that aimed at changing statutory smoking bans. Data generated through the systematic review were correlated with state smoking rates. Results: The protection from the dangers of secondhand smoke is the primary motive for smoking bans in Germany. The first smoke-free laws affecting smoking in pubs, restaurants and several other public places were introduced in 2007. In 2008, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled in a leading decision on the smoke-free laws of two states that some common smoking ban exemptions of the introduced smoke-free laws violate the basic right to freely exercise a profession and mandated revisions. All states but Bavaria and Saarland, whose smoking bans were more and less comprehensive than those judged by the constitutional court, respectively, needed to change the smoking ban exemptions to reconcile their smoke-free laws with the constitution. Direct democracy initiatives to change smoking bans were only successful in Bavaria in 2010, but a total of 15 initiatives by citizens’ or interest groups attempted to influence non-smokers protection legislation through direct democratic procedures. Early ratification of a smoking ban in a federal state correlates with a higher reduction in the smoking rate from 2005 to 2009 (Spearman’s ρ = 0.51, p = 0.04). Conclusions: The federal government structure and direct democratic participation in smoke-free legislation in Germany has produced a diversity of local smoking bans and exemptions.

show abstract

Much Ado About Nothing? Smoking Bans and Germany’s Hospitality Industry

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Public Smoking Bans, Youth Access Laws, and Cigarette Sales at Vending Machines

Public Smoking Bans, Youth Access Laws, and Cigarette Sales at Vending Machines

Tobacco and alcohol: complements or substitutes?

Smoke-Free Laws and Direct Democracy Initiatives on Smoking Bans in Germany: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About