Cross-section and panel estimates of peer effects in early adolescent cannabis use: With a little help from my ‘friends once removed’

Peer effects in adolescent cannabis are difficult to estimate, due in part to the lack of appropriate data on behaviour and social ties. This paper exploits survey data that have many desirable properties and have not previously been used for this purpose. The data set, collected from teenagers in three annual waves from 2002-2004 contains longitudinal information about friendship networks within schools (N = 5,020). We exploit these data on network structure to estimate peer effects on adolescents from their nominated friends within school using two alternative approaches to identification. First, we present a cross-sectional instrumental variable (IV) estimate of peer effects that exploits network structure at the second degree, i.e. using information on friends of friends who are not themselves ego’s friends to instrument for the cannabis use of friends. Second, we present an individual fixed effects estimate of peer effects using the full longitudinal structure of the data. Both innovations allow a greater degree of control for correlated effects than is commonly the case in the substance-use peer effects literature, improving our chances of obtaining estimates of peer effects than can be plausibly interpreted as causal. Both estimates suggest positive peer effects of non-trivial magnitude, although the IV estimate is imprecise. Furthermore, when we specify identical models with behaviour and characteristics of randomly selected school peers in place of friends’, we find effectively zero effect from these ‘placebo’ peers, lending credence to our main estimates. We conclude that cross-sectional data can be used to estimate plausible positive peer effects on cannabis use where network structure information is available and appropriately exploited.

Beyond the ‘Tomlinson Trap’: Analysing the Effectiveness of Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006

One of the intentions underpinning section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 was to provide reassurance to individual volunteers, and voluntary organisations, involved in what the provision called ‘desirable activities’ and including sport. The perception was that such volunteers, motivated by an apprehension about their increased vulnerability to negligence liability, and as driven by a fear of a wider societal compensation culture, were engaging excessively in risk-averse behaviour to the detriment of such socially desirable activities. Academic commentary on section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 has largely regarded the provision as unnecessary and doing little more than restating existing common law practice. This article argues otherwise and, on critically reviewing the emerging jurisprudence, posits the alternative view that section 1, in practice, affords an enhanced level of protection and safeguarding for individuals undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity. Nonetheless, the occasionally idiosyncratic judicial interpretation given to term ‘desirable activity’, potentially compounded by recent enactment of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, remains problematic. Two points of interest will be used to inform this debate. First, an analysis of the then House of Lords’ decision in Tomlinson and its celebrated ‘balancing exercise’ when assessing reasonableness in the context of negligence liability. Second, a fuller analysis of the application of section 1 in the specific context of negligence actions relating to the coaching of sport where it is argued that the, albeit limited, jurisprudence might support the practical utility of a heightened evidential threshold of gross negligence.