1. 목차_kkh hwp

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "1. 목차_kkh hwp"

선영 호
4 years ago
Views:

1 韓國開發硏究제 31 권제 2 호 ( 통권제 105 호 ) 금연법강화가흡연에미치는영향 김범수 ( 고려대학교정경대학경제학과조교수 ) 김아람 ( 고려대학교정경대학경제학과대학원생 ) The Impacts of Smoking Bans on Smoking in Korea Beomsoo Kim (Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Korea University) Ahram Kim (Graduate Student, Department of Economics, Korea University) * 김범수 : ( ) Kimecon@korea.ac.kr, (address) Department of Economics, Korea University, Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul , Korea 김아람 : ( ) ahram320@hanmail.net, (address) Department of Economics, Korea University, Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul , Korea Key Word: (Smoking Ban), (Current Smoker), (Cigarettes Per Day) JEL code: J21, I18 Received: Referee Process Started: Referee Reports Completed:

2 ABSTRACT There is a growing concern about potential harmful effect of second-hand or environmental tobacco smoking. As a result, smoking bans in workplace become more prevalent worldwide. In Korea, workplace smoking ban policy become more restrictive in 2003 when National health enhancing law was amended. The new law requires all office buildings larger than 3,000 square meters (multi-purpose buildings larger than 2,000 square meters) should be smoke free. Therefore, a lot of indoor office became non smoking area. Previous studies in other counties often found contradicting answers for the effects of workplace smoking ban on smoking behavior. In addition, there was no study in Korea yet that examines the causal impacts of smoking ban on smoking behavior. The situation in Korea might be different from other countries. Using 2001 and 2005 Korea National Health and Nutrition surveys which are representative for population in Korea we try to examine the impacts of law change on current smoker and cigarettes smoked per day. The amended law impacted the whole country at the same time and there was a declining trend in smoking rate even before the legislation update. So, the challenge here is to tease out the true impact only. We compare indoor working occupations which are constrained by the law change with outdoor working occupations which are less impacted. Since the data has been collected before (2001) and after (2005) the law change for treated (indoor working occupations) and control (outdoor working occupations) groups we will use difference in difference method. We restrict our sample to working age (between 20 and 65) since these are the relevant population by the workplace smoking ban policy. We also restrict the sample to indoor occupations (executive or administrative and administrative support) and outdoor occupations (sales and low skilled worker) after dropping unemployed and someone working for military since it is not clear whether these occupations are treated group or control group. This classification was supported when we examined the answers for workplace smoking ban policy existing only in 2005 survey. Sixty eight percent of indoor occupations reported having an office smoking ban policy compared to forty percent of outdoor occupation answering workplace smoking ban policy. The estimated impacts on current smoker are 4.1 percentage point decline and cigarettes per day show statistically significant decline of 2.5 cigarettes per day. Taking into account consumption of average sixteen cigarettes per day among smokers it is sixteen percent decline in smoking rate which is substantial. We tested robustness using the same sample across two surveys and also using tobit model. Our results are robust against both concerns. It is possible that our measure of treated and control group have measurement error which will lead to attenuation bias. However,

3 ABSTRACT we are finding statistically significant impacts which might be a lower bound of the true estimates. The magnitude of our finding is not much different from previous finding of significant impacts. For cigarettes per day previous estimates varied from 1.37 to 3.9 and for current smoker it showed between 1%p and 7.8%p.

4 130 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ Ⅰ. 서론 2002, 30%, 10%. (Surgen General) 1988, (Royal College of Physicians), ( (World Health Organization), Tobacco Free Initiative ). 1) 1986 /(National Academy of Science / National Research Council) (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) (Secondhand Smoke). (Environmental Protection Agency) 1992 A (Evans et al. [1999]) (Tobacco Free Initiative) % OECD 30, 52%. 20.3% 18%., 5.4% OECD, 14.7%. 30.4% (34%), (31.7%) (OECD[2008])., )

5 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 131, 51%, 13% ( [2002])., 59.5%.. ([1999]). 36% ( [2002])., ,000 2, ,000 2,000,,., (Evans et al.[1999]),.,. 2003

6 132 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ.,,,.. (control group). (, ) (treatment group).,., ,,,., (robustness).. Ⅱ. 문헌연구. (2002)

7 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 ,, % ,,. (2001) , 10% 2.7%..,.,. (2001) , 1 GDP,.,, 1 GDP 1, 1.,,

8 134 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ,.. Petersen et al.(1988) 1,260.. Longo et al.(1998) (Joint commission on accreditation of healthcare organizations) Biener et al.(1989) , 1. Evans et al.(1999) National Health Interview Survey 5.7%p 2.3. (instrumental variable),.,.....

9 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 135 Ⅲ. 한국의금연정책들., , 2000,,, TV,,. KBS, SBS, MBC TV,. 2004,,,,,,, , ,,,, , ( 29%) , 1995

10 136 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ., (2002) (1999). (2002), 51%, 13%. (1999) 59.5%. ([1999]) ,,. 2),,, , ). 6 ( ) 94 ( ) ( ). < , > ( )

11 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 137 Ⅳ. 실증분석 1. 분석자료.,. 1,500,. 15, 20. 3, , 2003, ,, ,, ) 4,000,,,,, ) 1,.

12 138 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ.,,,,. 2. 연구변수가. 종속변수.?. 1, 0. 4),. 60 (5) 60. 5) 나. 독립변수 (Treat) (Y2005). (difference in differences).,,, 2005., 1, 0.,, 3., censor(top coding) ) (2005=100).,. 4) ? , ). 6).

13 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 분석모형 two part model. two part model, (Duan, Manning, Morris, and Newhouse [1983]; Madden[2008]). (participation equation),. Y it = X it b + Y2005 t * Treat i c + Y2005 t d + δ i + Region i + ε it (1) Y it (i) (t) (1=, 0= ), X,,,, (2005 ),, , , (Treat) (Y2005), c. Y2005t. Treat (δ i ). 13 (region). 7) (Linear Probability Model: LPM) Logit Probit. Y2005*Treat Ai and Norton(2003). (LPM). (conditional 7) , 2001,,.,,,,,,,,,,,, 13.

14 140 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ use specification). (Y it Y it >0) = X it b+ Y2005 t * Treat i c+ Y2005 t d + δ i + Region i + ε it (2) Y it (Ordinary Linear Square: OLS) ,,,,,,, /, (, ),.. 8), %, % ? 1, %, 62%.., 40.6%, 39.6%. (Treat) 1, (Treat) 0. 8),.

15 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 141,,. (Treat=1) (Treat=0), (control group) (treatment group). (Treat).,.,., (Moore et al.[1997]). (attenuation bias) (Wooldridge[2002], pp.73~76). (lower bound). Ⅴ. 회귀분석결과 < 1> ,948 4,069. 9) 2001, , 59% 61%.. ( ) 35% 40% %. 10) 9) 1998,. 10) (2005 ) 2001.

16 142 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ <Table 1> Sample Characteristics Variable Year Mean Age (10.52) (10.7) Monthly Real Income (Year 2005=100) Unit: % Male Education Middle School Graduates or less High School Graduates College Graduates and over Occupations Indoor Occupations Executive, Administrative, etc Administrative Support Outdoor Occupations Sales Occupations Factory Worker All Current Smoker Cigarettes Per Day(smokers Cigarettes Per Day(all only) workers) (7.86) (9.61) (9.05) (9.51) Male Current Smoker Cigarettes Per Day(smokers only) (7.77) (8.94) Cigarettes Per Day(all workers) (10.12) (10.58) Female Current Smoker Cigarettes Per Day(smokers only) (6.02) (7.83) Cigarettes Per Day(all workers) (2.63) (3.27) Observations 3,948 4,069 Note: Korea National Health and Nutrition Survey wave 2 (2001) and wave 3 (2005) is used. Sample are restricted to worker age between 20 and 65. Occupations like military personal, farmer are dropped. Executive, administrative and administrative support are classified as indoor workers. Sales occupations and factory workers are classified as outdoor workers. Real monthly household income (in 2005 won) in the unit of 10,000 won is used. Sample weights are used for all calculations. Standard deviations are in parenthesis.

17 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 143, 10.7% 11.2%, 9.1% 11.4% % % 2.4%p, 20% 23.8% 3.8%p.,, % % 2.6%p , % % % 7.5% < 2> ( =1, =0) (binary variable) (participation equation). (binary) (LPM). (Y2005*Treat),,,, 14, 12.5%p..,.. 32, %p. 54%p. 1 (1) 0.01%,. 8,017.,

18 144 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ <Table 2> Impact of Smoking Bans on Current Smoker Current Smoker (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Y2005*Treat (0.0159) (0.0170) (0.0170) (0.0204) (0.0204) Y (0.0115) (0.0116) (0.0116) (0.0123) (0.0133) Male ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (0.0128) Age ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Age2/ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Logincome ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Having Children under (0.0112) (0.0113) (0.0113) (0.0113) (0.0113) High School Graduates (0.0148) (0.0148) (0.0152) (0.0151) College Graduates and Over (0.0172) (0.0173) (0.0192) (0.0192) Region Dummy Y Y Y Occupation Dummy Y Y Year*male Y R Observations 8,017 8,017 8,017 8,017 8,017 Note: Linear Probability Model is used. Survey wave 2 (2001) and 3 (2005) is used. Less than high school graduates is omitted group. Four occupation (executive, administrative support, sales, factoryworker) is considered. Treat =1 if executive and administrative support and 0 otherwise. Robust standard errors are in parenthesis. Sample weights are used. 8.9%p.,, 95% 7.6%p.

19 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 ,.. 4.2%p. ek. 4.1%p, 95%. < 3> two part model. < 2>, (OLS).,,. 2.5, 16 16%. 95%. < 4>,. 11) 4.2%p.. 3.2%p, 90%. 2.4, 4.7, 95% 90%. 11),. Evans et al. (1999) extensive margin intensive margin. Tobit 0 censor,.

20 146 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ <Table 3> Impact of Smoking Ban on Smoking, Two Part Model Y2005*Treat Y2005 Male Age Age2/100 Logincome Having Children under 14 High School Graduates College Graduates and Over Current Smoker (0.0204) (0.0133) (0.0128) ( ) ( ) ( ) (0.0113) (0.0151) (0.0192) Cigarettes Per Day Only Smokers (0.684) (1.033) (0.767) (0.131) (0.161) (0.257) (0.357) (0.545) (0.615) Region Dummy Y Y Occupation Dummy Y Y Year*male Y Y R Observations Note: OLS is used. Less than high school graduates is omitted group. Four occupation (executive,administrativesupport,sales,factoryworker) is considered. Treat =1 if executive and administrative support and 0 otherwise. Survey wave 2 (2001) and 3 (2005) is used. Strict smoking ban rule is applied in Robust standard errors are in parenthesis. Sample weights are used.

21 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 147 <Table 4> Impacts of Smoking Ban, by Gender Cigarettes per day Cigarettes per day Current smoker Only smokers All adults Y2005*Treat (0.0315) Male (0.707) (0.637) Mean R Observations Female 4706 Y2005*Treat Mean (0.0179) (2.747) (0.205) R Observations 3, ,294 Note: See Notes on Table 2 for the first column and Table 3 for the second column. 1.9, 0.5, 95%. Ⅵ. 추정의안정성확인.,..,

22 148 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ < 5>,, ,, 8, ,756, 3.9%...., (Treat=1) (Treat=0).., ) , %. (selection, or sorting). 12).,,,,,,,,,.

23 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 149 <Table 5> Robustness Check for Different Cohorts Current Y2005*Treat (0.0204) smoker Cigarettes per day Only smokers Age 20~65 in 2001 or (0.684) Cigarettes per day All adults (0.396) R Observations Age 20~61 in 2001 and Age 24~65 in 2005 Y2005*Treat (0.0208) (0.693) (0.410) R Observations Note: Korea National Health and Nutrition Survey second and third waves are used. OLS is used., (HR [2009]),,,,. 0. 0, 0 0 Tobit (unbiased). < 6> (OLS) Tobit -3.35, 95%. Tobit,

24 150 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ <Table 6> Comparison between OLS and Tobit Smoking Ban OLS (0.396) Cigarettes per day All adults Tobit (0.955) Observations 8,000 8,000 Note: Marginal effect of tobit model is Ⅶ. 결론, ,000 2, ).,..,,.,. 4.1%p, %. 13).

25 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 151,.,. (attenuation bias). (lower bound) ( 16% ) Evans et al.(1999) , 4.1%p Evans et al.(1999) 1%p 7.8%p, 5.7%p, Longo et al.(1998) 2.7%p.

26 152 韓國開發硏究 / Ⅱ 참고문헌,,, 2001.,,,, 2002., 2008, 2008.,, ,,, 2001.,, HR,,, Ai, Chunrong, and Edward C. Norton, Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models, Economics Letters 80, 2003, pp.123~129. Biener, Lois, David Abrams, Michael Follick, and Larry Dean, A Comparative Evaluation of a Restrictive Smoking Policy in a General Hospital, American Journal of Public Health 79(2), 1989, pp.192~195. Duan, N., W. Manning, C. Morris, and J. Newhouse, A Comparison of Alternative Models for the Demand for Medical Care, Journal of Business Economics and Statistics 1(2), April 1983, pp.115~126. Evans, William N. Matthew C. Farrelly, and Edward B. Montgomery, Do Workplace Smoking Bans Reduce Smoking? American Economic Review 89(5), September 1999, pp.729~747. Longo, Daniel, Mary Feldman, Robin Kruse, Ross Brownson, Gregory Petroski and John Hewett, Tobacco Control, , pp.47~55. Madden, David, Sample Selection Versus Two-part Models Revisited: The Case of Female Smoking and Drinking, Journal of Health Economics 27(2), 2008, pp.300~307. Moore, Jeffrey, Linda Stinson, and Edward Welniak, Jr., Income Measurement Error in Surveys: A Review, Proceeding Monograph from the Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology II Conference, Charlottesville, VA, OECD, Health Data, Petersen, Lyle, Steven Helgerson, Carol Gibbons, Chanelle Calhoun, Katherine Ciacco, and Pitchford Karen, Employee Smoking Behavior Changes and Attiudes Following a Restirictive Policy

27 금연법강화가흡연에미친영향 153 on Worksite Somiking in a Large Company, Public Hearth Reports 103(2), 1988, pp.115~120. Wooldridge, Jeffrey, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, MIT Press, 2002, pp.73~76.

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구

한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구 한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구 - - i - - i - - ii - - iii - - iv - χ - v - - vi - - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - 그림 1. 연구대상자선정도표 - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - 그림 2. 연구의틀 χ - 9 - - 10 - - 11 -