Search results

The U.S. 2009 Tobacco Control Act opened the door for new antismoking policies by giving the Food and Drug Administration broad regulatory authority over the tobacco industry. We develop a behavioral welfare economics approach to conduct cost-benefit analysis of FDA tobacco regulations. We use a simple two-period model to develop expressions for the impact of tobacco control policies on social welfare. Our model includes: nudge and paternalistic regulations; an excise tax on cigarettes; internalities created by period 1 versus period 2 consumption; and externalities from cigarette consumption. Our analytical expressions show that in the presence of uncorrected internalities and externalities, a nudge or a tax to reduce cigarette consumption improves social welfare. In sharp contrast, a paternalistic regulation might either improve or worsen social welfare. Another important result is that the social welfare gains from new policies do not only depend on the size of the internalities and externalities, but also depend on the extent to which current policies already correct the problems. We link our analytical expressions to the graphical approach used in most previous studies and discuss the information needed to complete cost-benefit analysis of tobacco regulations. We use our model as a framework to reexamine the evidence base for strong conclusions about the size of the internalities, which is the key information needed.

Health information drives crucial consumer health decisions and plays a central role in healthcare markets. Consumers who are better-informed about smoking, diet, and physical activity make healthier choices outside the healthcare sector (Kenkel, 1991; Ippolito & Mathios, 1990, 1995; Meara, 2001). Better-informed consumers also interact differently with physicians and other healthcare providers (e.g., Cutler, Landrum, & Stewart, 2006). In addition to the immediate consequences for individual consumers, health economists have long recognized that information also has broader implications for principal–agent relationships and the functioning of healthcare markets.¹ More recent lines of research in health economics and medical sociology emphasize the potential role of consumer information in explaining health disparities associated with socioeconomic status (Deaton, 2002; Goldman & Lakdawalla, 2001; Glied & Lleras-Muney, 2003; Link & Phelan, 1995). Both health economists and medical sociologists stress that because of disparities in consumer information, rapid medical progress tends to be accompanied by increased disparities in medical treatment and health outcomes.

Kevin Fiscella notes that, to date, progress in eliminating racial disparities has been slow. He calls for a comprehensive approach that goes beyond the narrow focus of current policy. Given the association between education and health, he advocates greater investments in early childhood education. In light of its broad geographic and demographic reach and role in preventing or delaying the onset of chronic disease, he also proposes to strengthen the delivery of primary care through the network of Federally Qualified Community Health Centers (FQHCs).

Claims that the consumer behaviour field, during the last two decades, has become both multinational and multidisciplinary. States that marketing with its consumer behaviour, has become the most import sub‐field, while significant contributions to its understanding have been made by economists, psychologists, sociologists and political scientists. Attempts to prove that integrating the field into comprehensive models has not been very successful thus far, by using a different track. Organizes into 9 sections and addresses, finally, the further development of consumer theory and research. Posits that the majority of studies on consumer behaviour have approached the subject matter at the individual, rather than the group, level. Summarizes that the ‘gospel’ preached is that of individual, proactive, foresightful choice ‐ which is compatible with rationalistic culture, stressing volition and personal responsibility by broadening the field of consumer behaviour

This paper aims to provide a “biography” of sorts on Agricultural Finance Review. The paper tracks the evolution of Agricultural Finance Review from its introduction in 1938 to its current status.

The paper is based on a complete review of every paper and every issue. Not all papers were read by the author, but key papers of interest that in one way or another made significant contributions to the study of agricultural finance were reviewed.

The paper shows the evolution of agricultural finance from the early days of reporting financial data in the 1930s and 1940s, to its emergence as a major and significant sub discipline of the general field of agricultural economics.

As indicated, not all papers were fully reviewed or read. It is possible that papers identified as “firsts” may have been preceded by other papers. Nonetheless the paper identifies the basic evolutionary path of the journal and defines key points in time when a paradigm shift emerged to change the direction of this discipline.

As Agricultural Finance Review transitions from the Department of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University to Emerald Group Publishing Limited, this “biography” provides readers with a general overview of the journal's and the discipline's historical development.

This paper is simply a review of the existing literature found in Agricultural Finance Review.

Farmers' exposure to pesticides is high in developing countries. As a result many farmers suffer from ill‐health, both short and long term. Deaths are not uncommon. Seeks to address this issue.

Field survey data from Sri Lanka are used to estimate farmers' expenditure on defensive behaviour (DE) and to determine factors that influence DE. The avertive behaviour approach is used to estimate the costs. Tobit regression analysis is used to determine factors that influence DE.

Field survey data show that farmers' expenditures on DE are low. This is inversely related to high incidence of ill health among farmers using pesticides.

The results of this study are useful, not only for Sri Lanka, but also for many countries in South Asia, Africa and Latin America in reducing the current high levels of direct exposure to pesticides among farmers and farm workers using hand sprayers. Farmers' exposure to pesticides is a major occupational health hazard in these countries.