Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 59–77 | Cite as

Intangible outcomes from a policy change: using contingent valuation to quantify potential stigma from a cannabis offence

  • Marian ShanahanEmail author
  • Alison Ritter
Article

Abstract

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

This paper demonstrates the feasibility of using economic methods to value intangible benefits from drug policy changes.

Keywords

Cannabis Cannabis policy Contingent valuation Economic evaluation Stigma 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Ableson, P. (2000). Public economics principles and practice. Sydney: Applied Economics.Google Scholar
  2. ACT Government Health Directorate. (2011). ACT Drug Diversion Data Activity Report 2010-2011. Canberra: ACT Health.Google Scholar
  3. Ahern, J., Stuber, J., & Galea, S. (2007). Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88, 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow, K., Solow, R., et al. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson, G., Healley, A., & Mourato, S. (2005). Valuing the cost of violent crime: a stated preference approach. Oxford Economic Papers, 57, 559–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). NSW 2006 census data. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
  7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). 6202.0 - Labour force, Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Government of Australia.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Bartels, R., Fiebig, D., & va Soest, A. (2006). Consumers and experts: an econometric analysis of the demand for water heaters. Empirical Economics, 31, 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boardman, A., Greenbery, D., Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2001). Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Borghi, J. (2007). Aggregation rules for cost-benefit analysis: a health economics perspective. Health Economics, 17, 863–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (2006). Court statistics. Sydney: NSW Government Law Link.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Cohen, M. (2007). Valuing crime control benefits using stated preferences approaches. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, M., Rust, R., Steen, S., & Tidd, S. (2004). Willingness-to-pay for crime control programs. Criminology, 42(1), 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Diener, A., O’Brien, B., & Gafni, A. (1998). Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics, 7, 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dolan, P., & Peasgood, T. (2007). Estimating the economic and social costs of the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminololgy, 47(1), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dolan, P., Loomes, G., Peasgood, T., & Tsuchiya, A. (2005). Estimating the intangible victim costs of violent crime. British Journal of Criminololgy, 45(6), 958–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Funk, P. (2004). On the elective use of stigma as a crime-deterrent. European Economic Review, 48, 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Furuya, K. (2002). A socio-economic model of stigma and related social problems. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gettman, J. (2007). Lost taxes and other consequences of marijuana laws. The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform., 4.Google Scholar
  28. Global Commission on Drugs Policy. (2011). War on drugs. Ipanema, Brazil: Global Commission on Drugs Policy.Google Scholar
  29. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliablity and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597–607.Google Scholar
  30. Haden, M. (2008). Controlling illegal stimulants: a regulated market model. Harm Reduction Journal, 5, 1477–7517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hathaway, A., Comeau, N., & Erickson, P. (2011). Cannabis normalization and stigma: contemporary practices of moral regulation. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 11(5), 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Jacoby, A. (1994). “Felt versus enacted stigma: a concept revisited.” Social Science and Medicine(38): 269-274.Google Scholar
  36. Johannesson, M., Jonsson, B., & Karlsson, G. (1996). Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Economics, 5, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Lloyd, L. (2010). Sinning and Sinned Against: The Stigmatisation of Problem Drug Users. London: University of York.Google Scholar
  41. Lopes, G., Krohn, M., Lizotte, A. D., Schmidt, N. M., Vásquez, B. E., & Bernburg, J. G. (2012). Labeling and cumulative disadvantage: The impact of formal police intervention on life chances and crime during emerging adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 456–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lott, J. (1992). An attempt at measuring the total monetary penalty from drug convictions: The importance of an individual’s reputation. The Journal of Legal Studies, 21, 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Louviere, J., & Lancsar, E. (2009). Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Economics, Policy, and Law, 4, 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ludgwig, J., & Cook, P. (2001). The benefits of reducing gun violence: Evidence from contingent-valuation survey data. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22, 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McKeganey, N. (2010) "Bad stigma … Good Stigma?" Drink and Drug News.Google Scholar
  46. McKnight, D. (2005). Beyond right and left new politics and the culture wars. Sydeny: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  47. 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.
  48. Olsen, S. (2009). Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering Non-market goods. Environmental Resource Economics, 44, 591–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Olsen, J., & Smith, R. (2001). Theory vesus practice: a review of willingness-to-pay in health and health care. Health Economics, 10, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. The American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S. (2006). Cost benefit analysis and the environment. Recent developments. OECD.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. Piquero, N., Cohen, M., & Piquero, A. (2011). How much is the public willing to Pay to be protected from identity theft? Justice Quarterly, 28, 437–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rasmusen, E. (1996). Stigma and self-fulfilling expectations of criminality. Journal of Law and Economics, 39, 519–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. Smith, R. (2000). The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics. Medical Decision Making, 20, 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith, R. (2003). Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: A critical assessment. Health Economics, 12, 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith, R. (2006). It’s not just what you do, it’s the way that you do it: The effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Economics, 15, 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith, R. (2007). Use, option and externality values: Are contingent valuation studies in health care mis-specified? Health Economics, 16, 861–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. UNODC (2010). World Drug Report 2010, United Nations Publication Sales No. E.10.XI.13: 194.Google Scholar
  63. van Dijk, J. (1998). The narrow margins of the Dutch drug policy: A cost benefit analysis. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 6, 369–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Laar, M. and van Ooyen-Houben, M. (2009). Evaluation Dutch Drug Policy, Trimbos instituut, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. Weatherburn, D., Jones, C., & Donnelly, N. (2003). Prohibition and Cannabis Use in Australia: A Survey of 18- to 29-year-olds. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36(1), 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Willis, K., Powe, N., & Garrod, G. (2005). Estimating the value of improved street lighting: A factor analytical discrete choice approach. Urban Studies, 42(12), 2289–2303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wodak, A., Reinarman, C., & Cohen, P. (2002). Cannabis control: costs outweigh the benefits: For. British Medical Journal, 324, 105–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wooldridge, J. (2009). Introductory econometrics. A modern approach. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research CentreUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations