Search

California is often considered the model for tobacco-control programs due to its early adoption of comprehensive programs aimed at lowering tobacco consumption. Tobacco control began when voters approved the California Tobacco Tax and Health Promotion Act of 1988. More than $2 billion has been spent on tobacco-control in California since 1988. The findings of this article indicate that tobacco-control spending is a significant factor for the widening gap between consumption in the United States and in California only in equations that exclude cigarette prices and smoking bans as control variables. When significant, however, estimates suggest that, for every $1 increase in tobacco-control spending per capita, the sales gap widens by only 0.11 to 0.18 cigarette packs per capita, or roughly 2 to 4 cigarettes per capita. This study suggests that future research should address the complexity of interactions among tobacco-control programs, cigarette prices, and smoking bans.

Fears about insufficient public education spending are often expressed in the area of higher education, whereby it is often argued that increases in expenditures on crime-related programs crowd out expenditures on higher education. This view suggests that higher education and crime-related programs directly compete for government expenditures so that what one program gains the other must lose as in a zero-sum game. A competing hypothesis is that higher crime-related spending leads to higher taxes or public debt issuance or to lower spending on programs other than higher education. We estimate a three-equation model of spending on crime-related programs, spending on higher education, and the crime rate from which we directly test whether spending on crime-related programs and higher education influence each other. Our empirical analysis provides weak evidence that crime-related programs have crowded out spending on higher education.