Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Heroin Consumption, Prices and Addiction: Evidence from Self‐reported Panel Data *

Heroin Consumption, Prices and Addiction: Evidence from Self‐reported Panel Data * Estimation models of drug demand should encompass the aspect of addiction. Here, we consider two static panel data regression models and two cross‐section models with lags or leads in drug consumption as additional regressors. Heroin injectors attending a needle exchange service in Oslo were interviewed twice, with a one‐year interval. Despite our relatively small sample, we obtain statistically significant price and income responses for nearly all of the models and specifications applied. The sample is split by dealing status, with dealers obtaining price elasticities in the range of (−0.15, −1.51) and non‐dealers (−0.71, −1.69). Somewhat surprisingly, the estimates of the variance of the latent individual‐specific variable are rather low in the panel data models, although higher for non‐dealers than for dealers. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Scandinavian Journal of Economics Wiley

Heroin Consumption, Prices and Addiction: Evidence from Self‐reported Panel Data *

Download PDF
20 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/heroin-consumption-prices-and-addiction-evidence-from-self-reported-jBatLPy4tG

References (22)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0347-0520
eISSN
1467-9442
DOI
10.1111/j.0347-0520.2003.00008.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Estimation models of drug demand should encompass the aspect of addiction. Here, we consider two static panel data regression models and two cross‐section models with lags or leads in drug consumption as additional regressors. Heroin injectors attending a needle exchange service in Oslo were interviewed twice, with a one‐year interval. Despite our relatively small sample, we obtain statistically significant price and income responses for nearly all of the models and specifications applied. The sample is split by dealing status, with dealers obtaining price elasticities in the range of (−0.15, −1.51) and non‐dealers (−0.71, −1.69). Somewhat surprisingly, the estimates of the variance of the latent individual‐specific variable are rather low in the panel data models, although higher for non‐dealers than for dealers.

Journal

The Scandinavian Journal of Economics – Wiley

Published: Dec 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.