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

Against farm subsidies

Many countries, especially those in the West, support their farmers with generous agricultural subsidies. In 2011, for example, Canada spent $6.9 billion on them. These programmes, however, create inefficiency and lead to morally questionable outcomes.

Farm subsidies artificially reduce the cost of farming. In other words, farmers produce more in jurisdictions with subsidies than those without, i.e. subsidized farmers produce more than what would otherwise be profitable under purely competitive market conditions.

For instance, consider a developed country without farm subsidies. Farmers would use land that allows them to earn as much, or more, money than they could by renting it to the highest bidder. If this country introduced agricultural subsidies, farmers would purchase or rent additional land, since it would increase their revenue from the additional land above its market price (which, all things equal, was uneconomical before subsidization). Under competitive conditions, farmers would not utilize the additional land, whereas providing subsidies encourages them to do so.

Now, imagine a farmer who plans to purchase land in one of two countries. He must choose between Country A, which has extremely fertile land, and Country B, which has only passable land. If the cost of doing business and renting land were equal in both countries, he would likely choose Country A. However, if Country B offered subsidies that compensate him for utilizing less productive land, then he may opt to operate there, instead. In other words, agricultural subsidies are inefficient, in that they encourage farming on land that could be useful for building shopping malls, restaurants, or movie theatres. Moreover, subsidies create inefficiencies between countries with different agricultural policies.

These subsidies are more pervasive in the developed world than in its developing counterpart. Farmers in poorer countries are unable to compete with farmers in richer countries that offer artificially low factor prices resulting from lavish subsidies. As a result, these subsidies encouraging production in areas that are not especially suitable for agriculture, while discouraging production in areas that are suitable for farming. It is in the interest of developing countries to end agricultural subsidies, as it would allow them to expand their agricultural industries, which currently underperform due to subsidies in rich countries, and would alleviate rural poverty by boosting production and prices. Currently, however, richer countries “dump” their subsidized products in poorer countries, not only deteriorating their ability to generate economic activity, but also creating a dependency trap. From the perspective of richer countries that provide billions in annual subsidies, it is more efficient to stop transferring wealth to their agricultural industry and, instead, purchase foodstuffs from abroad.

Agricultural subsidies additionally affect wealth distribution at the domestic level. Policymakers fund the subsidies using tax revenue, which they transfer to farmers and landowners that tend to be wealthier than most; in 2011, the average income of a farm family was $93,426. That is, they redistribute wealth from the general population to a small group of wealthy individuals and firms. Indeed, contemporary “farming” is much different from its predecessor: most “farmers” are wealthier individuals and many farm operations involve large firms that use factories.

Farm subsidies also have a tendency to remain politically relevant–the special interest group behind farm subsidies is very powerful. It is politically expedient for governments to stay these benefits, as they require little funding per capita, yet, provide massive benefits to a small group. In other words, the cost of fighting these subsidies exceeds to cost of providing them in the first place. Moreover, when subsidies increase, this group begins to sense that they can generate more profit by lobbying the government than by actually producing foodstuffs or agricultural commodities.

Lastly, the farming lobby provides a massive obstacle to potential trade deals. In 2007, for instance, American and European governments’ objected to limiting their agricultural subsidies, which threatened the World Trade Organization’s Doha talks. India and Brazil, the countries proposing that western farm subsidies recede, in turn, refused to open their markets.

Proponents of agricultural subsidies typically defend their position by arguing that they benefit farmers and increase food security. However, in world of institutionalized trade relationships, there is little reason why any country should strive for food autarky at the expense of efficiency. Additionally, the age of rural poverty in rich countries is essentially over: farmers whom subsidies support tend to be quite wealthy. For these reasons, and those mentioned above, all states would be wise to stop subsidizing agriculture.

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

The economic and moral benefits of ending Canada’s postal monopoly

Currently, Canada Post holds a monopoly on the delivery of first-class mail in Canada. The Canada Post Corporation Act affords it the “sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, transmitting, and delivering letters” within the country. Exceptions to this rule are limited.

There are several economic reasons for liberalizing postage in Canada by ending the Crown corporation’s monopoly. Since they are sheltered from market competition, for instance, monopolists can raise prices higher than firms in a competitive market could. The firm’s additional revenue stemming from its unique ability to participate in its market is termed monopoly rents. These rents reflect the difference between the firm’s prices and opportunity costs, which tend to converge in competitive markets as companies undercut each other until the process becomes unprofitable.

Sensing this advantage–that is, the ability to extract additional rents via monopoly status–unions typically bargain for some portion of these rents in the form of higher wages, favourable working conditions, and so forth. Nevertheless, this increases the firm’s costs.

Canada Post faces a difficult financial position because it allowed unions to absorb these rents. However, the emergence of newer, more efficient technologies eroded its ability to sustain higher levels of worker compensation. It manages these hardships by reducing costs by diminishing services, which has the counterproductive effect of exacerbating declining demand for its product. For instance, it announced plans to end mail delivery to urban homeowners and it has increased its stamp prices to offset its financial difficulties.

Importantly, though, Canada Post has the ability to impose these reforms only because consumers do not have a viable alternative for first-class mail delivery and other essential postal services.

By opening the postage market to competition, firms would need either to offer services closer to cost or offer better service than their competitors. Theory suggests, and empirics confirm, that liberal reforms in would reduce prices and increase the amount of options available to consumers, which, in the case of Austria, the Netherlands, and Germany–countries that liberalized their postal markets–is true.

Proponents of Canada Post’s monopoly suggest that it provides equal rates across the country, which allows the outfit to provide “affordable mail service” to rural Canadians. Yet, it is not entirely certain that competing firms could not offer cheaper rates in these areas than Canada Post. Furthermore, it is not necessarily clear why the postage industry has an obligation to equalize rural and urban Canada in the first place.

The monopoly on mail service in Canada also adversely affects free speech. In early March 2014, Canada Post apologized for delivering offensive pamphlets prepared by the People’s Gospel Hour to thousands of Labradorians. The mail-outs quoted the Bible in an attack against homosexuality. These situations raise an ethical dilemma about Canada Post’s ability to act as both a conduit of Canadian values and a service-provider.

Canada Post is a crown corporation chartered by the Canadian government, which promotes certain values and, therefore, it cannot sensibly deliver mail that is questionable in content. Conversely, it is the only firm permitted to deliver certain documents and packages and it cannot refuse certain mailing orders without violating freedom of speech (at least theoretically).

Ending the mail monopoly, and thereby allowing private individuals and firms to deliver letters, would solve this quandary – neither Ottawa, nor Canada Post, would have to implicitly support the dispersion of bigoted materials in order to safeguard freedom of speech and censored groups could seek alternative options for delivering said material. In other words, Canada Post employees would not be the ultimate arbiters of what is “acceptable” for delivery.

In any case, Canada Post’s monopoly is both uneconomical and ethically challenged, and allowing competitive forces to govern the Canadian postal market is a viable alternative. Unlike the current structure, for instance, private competition could allow for better quality and more affordable service, not to mention that, most importantly, it would quash concerns about the government’s role in deciding between decency and free speech.

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