When to Quit Under Uncertainty? A real options approach to smoking cessation

This paper models the decision to quit smoking like an investment decision where the quitter incurs a sunk withdrawal cost today and forgoes their consumer surplus from cigarettes (invests) and hopes to reap an uncertain reward of better health and therefore higher utility in the future (return). We show that a risk-averse mature smoker who expects to benefit from quitting may still rationally choose to delay quitting until they are more confident that quitting is the right decision for them. Such a decision by the smoker is due to the value associated with keeping their option of whether or not to quit open as they learn more about the damage that smoking will have on their future utility. Policies which reduce a smoker’s uncertainty about the damage that smoking with have on their future utility is likely to make them quit earlier.

Class-size Reduction Policies and the Quality of Entering Teachers

State-wide class-size reduction (CSR) policies have typically failed to produce large achievement gains. One explanation is that the introduction of such policies forces schools to hire relatively low-quality teachers. This paper uses data from an anonymous state to explore whether teacher quality suff ered from the introduction of CSR. We find that it did, but not nearly enough to explain the small achievement effects of CSR. The combined fall in achievement due to hiring lower quality teachers and more inexperienced teachers is small relative to the unrealized gains. Furthermore, between-school diff erences in the quality of incoming teachers cannot explain the poor estimated CSR performance from previous quasi-experimental treatment-control comparisons.

Obesity and smoking: can we catch two birds with one tax?

The debate on tobacco and fat taxes often treats smoking and eating as independent behaviors. However, the available evidence shows that they are interdependent, which implies that policies against smoking or obesity may have larger scope than expected. To address this issue, we propose a dynamic rational model where eating and smoking are simultaneous choices that jointly affect body weight and addiction to smoking. Focusing on direct and cross-price effects, we compare tobacco taxes and food taxes and we show that a single policy tool can reduce both smoking and body weight. In particular, food taxes can be more effective than tobacco taxes at simultaneously fighting obesity and smoking.