Against Smoking Bans in “Public Spaces”

In Canada, the government prohibits smoking in “indoor public spaces,” which, according to the law, consist of bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. The term “indoor public spaces,” however, is misleading: they are public only in the sense that there are other people sharing the space, yet, many of these “indoor public spaces” are owned by private individuals. There are several reasons for protecting their right to choose whether they want a smoke-free or smoke-filled establishment.

Many complain that smoking in bars is encouraging to nonsmokers and exposes them to secondhand smoke. There are many reasons why this argument may not hold. For now, though, it is more important to focus on the demonization of smoking. By categorically prohibiting restaurant owners from allowing their customers to smoke inside, the government prevents people from doing something they may want to do, i.e. to smoke in a bar or own a bar that allows smoking). Smoking is not good or bad “in itself,” but, rather, it is only good or bad according to individual preference, including, but not limited to, the tradeoff of overall health for immediate pleasure, the terms of which some individuals would happily agree with. Moreover, there is an enormous amount of information detailing the economic, health, and social harms associated with smoking available to consumers that allows them to choose intelligently.

A popular argument for banning smoking in indoor public spaces pertains to workers’ rights: smoking indoors threatens employee health and welfare and because many workers do not have the convenience of choosing their place of employment–so the argument goes–allowing it forces them to choose between inhaling toxic cigarette fumes and unemployment.

To some extent, indoor smoking harms workers. Does that really justify banning it?

Closer examination of firm behavior demonstrates that it varies based on the economic implications of “safety.” Between 2008 and 2010, 700 construction workers died from workplace injuries in Canada. In addition, 637 individuals died in manufacturing workplaces and 329 in the transportation industry. Although these numbers may seem surprising, the theory of compensating differentials explains why outcomes in some industries differ from those in others.

According to the compensating wage differentials theory, workers are compensated by firms in a number of ways: these include wages, nonwage benefits, and working conditions. Any given individual has a set of preferences between these forms of compensation. A risk adverse employee, for instance, may be willing to give up much of his paycheck for a little more safety. Someone comfortable with risk, however, could be willing to put herself squarely in danger’s way for better pay. That some individuals are comfortable with more risk explains why construction workers, for instance, agree to work in dangerous settings: higher compensation allays most concerns, whereas lower compensation highlights them. Firms need to offer compensation for labour to attract workers—when they decrease safety, labour supply shrinks and forces the firm to boost wages. Thus, there is a positive correlation between risk and compensation. And there is no authoritatively “ideal” level of risk; instead, there is a multitude of individually preferred ones.

Thus, to attract workers, owners of establishments that allow smoking indoors would need to offer wages high enough to distract employees from the health hazard associated with working there (assuming these concerns are present). For some workers, the increase in pay would offset their health concerns. Similarly, restaurant owners must consider whether indoor smoking discourages consumers from eating at their establishment. If there is growing opposition to smoking, for example, restaurant owners must choose between allowing customers to smoke indoors and losing whatever percentage of their customer base that refuses to eat in an establishment that permits indoor smoking.

Examining both consumer and employee perspectives on smoking indoors lead to a common conclusion: laws dictating firm behavior typically enforce an arbitrary standard and ignore individual preferences. Instead, the government should allow property owners to decide what is best for their respective establishments and let people pursue their individual desires freely.

Michael Sullivan is a 2013-2014 Atlantic Institute for Market Studies’ Student Fellow. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily the Institute

Debating Revenue-neutral Carbon Taxes

During the 2008 federal election, proposals to implement a federal carbon tax were a major point of contention. Although Canadian voters ultimately rejected the plan, the issue of carbon pricing remains at the forefront of environmental discourse. This is for good reason: climate scientists, having shown conclusively that the earth is warming, now mostly concern themselves with both the size of the effect, in addition to its primary determinants.

In 2007, the Province of British Columbia (BC) successfully implemented a carbon tax with an important feature: revenue neutrality. The government expected to generate nearly $5 billion annually via carbon taxation and, accordingly, it would reduce personal and corporate taxes by an equal amount. This, in effect, slays one substantial criticism of a carbon tax, which is that it amounts to an additional overall tax burden on individuals, families, and firms. In British Columbia, the policy managed to deter purchases of gasoline and other carbon-intensive products by nearly 10 per cent relative to the rest of Canada, without burdening British Columbians with additional taxes.

Granted, those statistics only measure the carbon that British Columbians purchase in BC. They do not consider the stories of weekend lineups at American border towns where Canadians buy cheaper gas now that the price difference is large. This phenomenon may certainly account for some of the change, but it is quite difficult to imagine this effect being substantial. How much gas must a Vancouverite purchase to justify the two-hour drive, plus the wait in line?

Carbon pricing is also part of the discussion in Atlantic Canada.

In a series of papers published in 2009, University of New Brunswick economist Joe Rugger analyzes the environmental and taxation implications of a BC-styled revenue-neutral carbon tax in New Brunswick. The study found that a tax equivalent of 7 cents per liter on gasoline, applied to all forms of fossil fuel, would reduce carbon emissions in the province by roughly 7.5 per cent. This would occur primarily through higher electricity and heating bills, in addition to consumer purchases of gasoline and oil.

Changing carbon consumption occurs because of two opposing forces. First, making gasoline more expensive creates a “price effect” that causes people to shift their consumption away from gas and towards other things. This is what people refer to when they talk about nudging consumer behavior in a direction hoped to be socially beneficial. The second effect is due to the decreased tax burden–the “wealth effect.” Here, income goes up because of a smaller tax burden. People will then tend to consume, on average, slightly more of everything, including carbon. This works in the opposite direction of the price effect. In the case of BC, it became clear that the price effect was larger than the income effect and, therefore, total consumption was less than it would have otherwise been.

This highlights a confusing irony of carbon pricing policy–anything that makes people richer will tend to mean that they consume more carbon. People should continue to prosper; however, the primary objective is reducing carbon consumption. There are also distributional effects that occur based on the form and target of the tax cuts, as well as consumption behavior. This will be the topic of a second blog post.

In sum, Canadians are becoming more environmentally conscious and they recognize the need for not only fiscal, but also ecological, prudence. In this light, carbon-pricing policies are likely to remain in public discourse. By pairing the carbon tax with associated general tax cuts, rendering it revenue neutral, British Columbia’s experiment shows that it is at least possible to deter carbon consumption, while also minimizing harmful economic effects.

With the upcoming New Brunswick election in the fall of 2014, I would not be surprised if this issue arrives on the campaign trail. Considering recent curiosity in New Brunswick about local shale gas development, this policy has the potential to become quite the wedge issue.

Michael Craig is a 2013-2014 Atlantic Institute for Market Studies’ Student Fellow. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily the Institute

Marketing Canadian Lobster

The Canadian lobster industry is set to undergo significant changes this year that will not only affect fishers and processors, but also consumers. At the Canadian Lobster Value Recovery Summit, held in Halifax last week, stakeholders agreed to implement a levy system by next year (although, the details are incomplete). The hope is that applying a levy on each pound of lobster meat caught and processed would go to marketing these as reliable, high standard, Canadian products. Doing so will expectantly expand consumer interest and demand, aiding this unique industry. However, the additional cost could potentially dissuade those who currently enjoy Canadian lobster at current prices–which are at all-time lows.

Implementing a levy does have some potential to bolster the industry. Charging $0.01/pound from both harvester and processor would raise an estimated $25 million annually according news reports on the Summit. The lobster landings have been increasing in recent years with an average between 50,000 and 55,000 tonnes, but exceeding 74,000 in 2012, the expected revenue could potentially increase if this trend continues. Money from the levy will help brand Canadian lobster and market it to consumers. Having a recognizable and well known product is becoming more and more important as companies in the US have started their own marketing initiatives causing increased trade competition. Yet, there are concerns about the effectiveness and efficiency of using a universal marketing scheme for a product that has such a diverse group of producers.

Furthermore, it will likely stabilize the price of lobster. Atlantic Canada’s lobster haul is high lately, which has reduced prices to extraordinarily low levels. Harvesters are not reducing supply to control demand, because they are also in competition with one another and, therefore, each individual company wants to reach their quota. By increasing the marketing effort, in addition to taking advantage of new trade opportunities, however, the lobster industry is confident that it can support a greater consumer base, which would also lift prices to a more sustainable level. Trade agreements between Canada, Europe, and South Korea bolster this opportunity and proper marketing will help attract new consumers.

Domestic consumers are unlikely to welcome the price increase that will result from the proposed levy, though, and when it comes into effect, those who have become accustomed to inexpensive lobster during years when supply exceed demand could reduce their demand. Unfortunately, however, the price of lobster is unsustainable for the industry as a whole. Some fishermen have had to exit the industry lately, unable to break even with expenditures on wages and rising operating costs (such as oil). If the Canadian lobster industry can increase their customer base through marketing and sustain this increase in prices, it has the opportunity to expand and become a profitable industry in the Canadian economy.

There are already quota and licensing systems in place for harvesting Canadian lobster and, so long as the levy functions efficiently, the lobster industry stands to achieve significant gains from the proposed changes. The supply of lobster depends largely on the systems already in place and the new system aims to increase demand in order to meet the available resources. It is important for the rest of Canada to understand that increasing lobster prices and selling in new markets will benefit the entire country by strengthening the Canadian lobster industry and, as a result, the economy.

Rachel Lowe is a 2013-2014 Atlantic Institute for Market Studies’ Student Fellow. The views expressed are the opinion of the author and not necessarily the Institute