Empirical Economics

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 539–566 | Cite as

Tobacco and alcohol: complements or substitutes?

A structural model approach to insufficient price variation in individual-level data
  • Harald TauchmannEmail author
  • Silja Lenz
  • Till Requate
  • Christoph M. Schmidt


The question of whether alcohol and tobacco are consumed as complements or substitutes is crucial for determining the side-effects of anti-smoking policies. Numerous papers have empirically addressed this issue by estimating demand systems for alcohol and tobacco, and subsequently calculating cross-price effects. However, this traditional approach is often seriously hampered by insufficient price variation observed in survey data. We, therefore, suggest an alternative instrumental variables approach that statistically mimics an experimental study and does not rely on prices as explanatory variables. This approach is applied by means of German survey data. Our estimation results suggest that a reduction in tobacco consumption results in a moderate reduction in alcohol consumption. It is demonstrated that this implies that alcohol and tobacco are complements. Hence, we conclude that successful anti-smoking policies will not result in the unintended side-effect of an increased (ab)use of alcohol.


Complements or substitutes Interdependence in consumption Tobacco and alcohol Insufficient price-variation Instrumental variables approach 

JEL Classification

C31 D12 I12 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahlfeldt G, Maenning W (2010) Impact of non-smoking ordinances on hospitality revenues: the case of Germany. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik. J Econ Stat 230: 506–521Google Scholar
  2. Angrist JD, Krueger AB (2001) Instrumental variables and the search for identification: from supply and demand to natural experiments. J Econ Perspect 15: 69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bantle C, Haisken-DeNew JP (2002) Smoke signals: the intergenerational transmission of smoking behavior. DIW Discussion Paper 227. DIW, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Bask M, Melkerson M (2004) Rationally addicted to drinking and smoking?. Appl Econ 36: 373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron L, Williams J (2004) Cannabis, alcohol and cigarettes: substitutes or complements?. Econ Rec 77: 19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaloupka FJ, Laixuthai A (1997) Do youths substitute alcohol and marijuana? Some econometric evidence. East Econ J 23: 253–276Google Scholar
  7. Cox TL, Wohlgenant MK (1986) Prices and quality effects in cross-sectional demand analysis. Am J Agric Econ 68: 908–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis GC, Kim SY (2002) Measuring instrument relevance in the single endogenous regressor—multiple instrument case: a simplifying procedure. Econ Lett 74: 321–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Decker SL, Schwartz AE (2000) Cigarettes and alcohol: substitutes or complements. NBER Working Paper Series 7535, National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Dee TS (1999) The complementarity of teen smoking and drinking. J Health Econ 18: 769–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DHS (ed) (2003) Alkoholabhängigkeit, Suchtmedizinische Reihe Band 1, Wissenschaftliches Kuratorium der Deutschen Hauptstelle für Suchtfragen (DHS) e.V., HammGoogle Scholar
  12. DiNardo J, Lemieux T (2001) Alcohol, marijuana, and American youth: the unintended effects of government regulation. J Health Econ 20: 991–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goel RK, Morey MJ (1995) The interdependence of cigarette and liquor demand. South Econ J 62: 451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene WH (2002) LIMDEP 8.0—econometric modeling guide. Plainview, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckman JJ (1976) The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Ann Econ Soc Meas 5: 475–492Google Scholar
  16. Hoderlein S, Mihaleva S (2008) Increasing the price variation in a repeated cross section. J Econom 147: 316–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Imbens GW, Angrist JD (1994) Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica 62: 467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jimenez S, Labeaga JM (1994) It is possible to reduce tobacco consumption via alcohol taxation. Health Econ 3: 231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones AM (1989) A system approach to the demand for alcohol and tobacco. Bull Econ Res 41: 85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones AM (2000) Health econometrics. In: Culyer A, Newhouse J (eds) Handbook of health economics, vol 1A. Elsevier, Amsterdam pp 265–344Google Scholar
  21. Kraus L, Augustin R (2001) Population survey on the consumption of psychoactive substances in the German adult population 2000. Sucht—Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis 47: 1–88Google Scholar
  22. Kvasnicka M, Tauchmann H (2012) Much ado about nothing? Smoking bans and Germany’s hospitality industry. Appl Econ 44: 4539–4551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Labeaga JM (1999) A double-hurdle rational addiction model with heterogeneity: estimating the demand for tobacco. J Econom 93: 49–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee YG, Abdel-Ghany M (2004) American youth consumption of licit and illicit substances. Int J Consum Stud 28: 454–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacDonald Z, Shields MA (2001) The impact of alcohol consumption on occupational attainment in England. Economica 68: 427–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murphy KM, Topel RH (1985) Estimation and inference in two-step econometric models. J Bus Econ Stat 3: 370–379Google Scholar
  28. Nelson FD, Olsen L (1978) Specification and estimation of a simultaneous equation model with limited dependent variables. Int Econ Rev 19: 695–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newey WK (1986) Efficient estimation of limited dependent variable models with endogenous explanatory variables. J Econom 36: 231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newey W, McFadden D (1994) Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. Handbook of econometrics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2111–2245Google Scholar
  31. Picone GA, Sloan F, Trogdon JG (2004) The effect of the tobacco settlement and smoking bans on alcohol consumption. Health Econ 13: 1063–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pierani P, Tiezzi S (2009) Addiction and interaction between alcohol and tobacco consumption. Empir Econ 37: 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poirier DJ (1980) Partial observability in bivariate probit models. J Econom 12: 209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rivers D, Vuong Q (1988) Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models. J Econom 39: 347–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith R, Blundell R (1986) An exogeneity test for the simultaneous equation tobit model with an application to labor supply. Econometrica 54: 679–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Su SJ, Yen ST (2000) A censored system of cigarette and alcohol consumption. Appl Econ 32: 729–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio test for model selection and non-nested hypothesis. Econometrica 57: 307–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Williams J, Pacula RL, Chaloupka FJ, Wechsler H (2004) Alcohol and marijuana use among college students: economic complements or substitutes. Health Econ 13: 825–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. World Health Organization (ed) (2008) WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2008: the MPOWER package. WHO Press, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. Yen ST (2005) A multivariate sample-selection model: estimating cigarette and alcohol demands with zero observations. Am J Agric Econ 87: 452–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhao X, Harris MN (2004) Demand for marijuana, alcohol and tobacco: participation, levels of consumption and cross-equation correlation. Econ Rec 80: 394–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harald Tauchmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Silja Lenz
    • 2
  • Till Requate
    • 3
  • Christoph M. Schmidt
    • 4
  1. 1.RWI and CINCH Health Economics Research CentreEssenGermany
  2. 2.NürnbergGermany
  3. 3.Institut für VWL, University of KielKielGermany
  4. 4.RWI and Ruhr-University Bochum IZA CEPREssenGermany

Personalised recommendations