Intangible outcomes from a policy change: using contingent valuation to quantify potential stigma from a cannabis offence
- 421 Downloads
New policies are increasingly required to be evaluated. One form of evaluation is a cost–benefit analysis where inputs and outcomes are all valued monetarily. However, intangible outcomes are often not included in these evaluations as they are perceived to be too difficult to value. The aim of this paper is to value one of the intangible benefits (decrease in stigma) from a potential change in drug policy using contingent valuation.
This paper reports on a contingent valuation study conducted among a community sample of 875 respondents on the internet. Respondents were asked what they would be willing to pay to avoid the stigma of a criminal record. Data were analysed with descriptive and regression analyses.
The survey found respondents were willing to pay a mean of $1,231 ($1,112–1,322; AUD 2009) to avoid the stigma from a criminal record for a loved one or for themselves. Household income was an important predictor of willingness-to-pay (WTP). The WTP was significantly and positively related to whether the respondent believed cannabis was usually or always addictive while those who had used cannabis recently (within past 12 months) were less likely to pay more, relative to those who had not used recently.
This paper demonstrates the feasibility of using economic methods to value intangible benefits from drug policy changes.
KeywordsCannabis Cannabis policy Contingent valuation Economic evaluation Stigma
This work was supported by grant from the Australian Research Council (DP0880066). This work forms part of the Drug Policy Modelling Program, a program funded by the Colonial Foundation Trust and auspiced by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, which receives core funding from the Commonwealth Government of Australia. Professor Ritter is funded through an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship.
- Ableson, P. (2000). Public economics principles and practice. Sydney: Applied Economics.Google Scholar
- ACT Government Health Directorate. (2011). ACT Drug Diversion Data Activity Report 2010-2011. Canberra: ACT Health.Google Scholar
- Arrow, K., Solow, R., et al. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.Google Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). NSW 2006 census data. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). 6202.0 - Labour force, Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Government of Australia.Google Scholar
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008). 2007 National drug strategy household survey. First results drug statistics series No 20. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.Google Scholar
- Baker, J., & Goh, D. (2004). The cannabis cautioning scheme three years on: An implementation and outcome evaluation. Sydney: Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.Google Scholar
- Boardman, A., Greenbery, D., Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2001). Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (2006). Court statistics. Sydney: NSW Government Law Link.Google Scholar
- Champ, P. and Welsh, M. (2006). Survey methodologies for stated choice studies. Valuing Environmental Amenities Stated Choice Methods. A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Chilton, S., Covey, J., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., & Metcalf, H. (2004). Valuation of health benefits associated with reductions in air pollution. Final report. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
- Cohen, M. (2007). Valuing crime control benefits using stated preferences approaches. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
- Crime Research Centre (2007). WA Diversion Program – Evaluation Framework (POP/STIR/IDP) Final Report for the Drug and Alcohol Office. Perth University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
- Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Douglas, B. and McDonald, D. (2012.). The prohibition of illicit drugs is killing and criminalising our children and we are all letting it happen, Australia 21. http://www.australia21.org.au//publications/press_releases/Australia21_Illicit_Drug_Policy_Report.pdf
- Frew, E. (2010). Benefit assessment for cost-benefit analysis studies in health care using contingent valuation methods. In E. McIntosh, P. Clarke, E. Frew, & J. Louviere (Eds.), Applied methods of cost-benefit analysis in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Gettman, J. (2007). Lost taxes and other consequences of marijuana laws. The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform., 4.Google Scholar
- Global Commission on Drugs Policy. (2011). War on drugs. Ipanema, Brazil: Global Commission on Drugs Policy.Google Scholar
- Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliablity and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597–607.Google Scholar
- Hughes, C. and Ritter, A. (2008). A summary of diversion programs for drug and drug-related offenders in Australia. DPMP Monographs. Sydney, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. No. 16.Google Scholar
- Hughes, C., & Stevens, A. (2007). The effects of decriminalization of drug Use in Portugal. The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme Briefing Paper, 14.Google Scholar
- Hunter, N. (2001). Cannabis expiation notice (CENs) in South Australia, 1997 to 2000. Information Bulletin. Adelaide, Office of Crime Statistics, Attorney General’s Department. No 27.Google Scholar
- Jacoby, A. (1994). “Felt versus enacted stigma: a concept revisited.” Social Science and Medicine(38): 269-274.Google Scholar
- Lenton, S. (2005). Deterrence theory and the limitations of criminal penalties for cannabis use. In T. Stockwell, P. Gruenewald, J. Toumbourou, & W. Loxley (Eds.), Preventing harmful substance Use. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
- Lenton, S., & Heale, P. (2000). Arrest, court and social impacts of conviction for a minor cannabis offence under strict prohibition. Contemporary Drug Problems, 27, 807–832.Google Scholar
- Lenton, S., Christie, P., et al. (1999). Infringement versus conviction: the social impact of a minor cannabis offence under a civil penalties system and strict prohibition in Two Australian states. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, L. (2010). Sinning and Sinned Against: The Stigmatisation of Problem Drug Users. London: University of York.Google Scholar
- McKeganey, N. (2010) "Bad stigma … Good Stigma?" Drink and Drug News.Google Scholar
- McKnight, D. (2005). Beyond right and left new politics and the culture wars. Sydeny: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
- OECD Project on Income Distribution and Poverty. (2005). “What are equivalence scales?” Retrieved May 15, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/52/35411111.pdf.
- Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S. (2006). Cost benefit analysis and the environment. Recent developments. OECD.Google Scholar
- Pellegrini, S. and Jeanrenaud, C. (2003) Willingness to pay of the Swiss population for a public health programme against alcohol dependence. Neuchatel: University of Neuchatel.Google Scholar
- Phillips, T., Tranter, B., Mitchell, D., Clark, J., & Reed, K. (2007). Australian survey of social attitudes, 2007. Canberra: The Australian National University, ACSPRI Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
- Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S. and Reuter, P. (2008). Cannabis Policy: Moving beyond stalemate. Global Cannabis Commission Foundation Oxford: Beckley Foundation.Google Scholar
- Schwarzinger, M., Carrat, G., & Luchini, S. (2009). “If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question” evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchoring. Journal of Health Economics, 29, 873–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- UNODC (2010). World Drug Report 2010, United Nations Publication Sales No. E.10.XI.13: 194.Google Scholar
- van Laar, M. and van Ooyen-Houben, M. (2009). Evaluation Dutch Drug Policy, Trimbos instituut, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction.Google Scholar
- Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2010). An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit-cost analysis to social policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analyisis, 1(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
- Weatherburn, D., & Jones, C. (2001). Does prohibition deter cannabis use? crime and justice bulletin. Sydney: Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, New South Wales Attorney’s General Department.Google Scholar
- Wooldridge, J. (2009). Introductory econometrics. A modern approach. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar