The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) resolved litigation between forty-six states and the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers. In total, the defendants agreed to pay more than $246 billion over twenty-five years to compensate the states for costs incurred in treating smoking-related diseases. This article explores the political and economic determinants of the monies to be distributed to the states under the MSA. Consistent with a damage model, the evidence suggests that the tobacco settlement payments are positively correlated with states' smoking-attributable health care expenditures. However, the authors also find that politics influenced the amounts individual states are scheduled to receive from the tobacco companies: the four states that did not participate in the MSA, big-government states, and those with greater numbers of medical professionals and health-related organizations will collect significantly larger sums over time than the damage model predicts.
Becker, Gary S.1983. A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Quarterly Journal of Economics98 (3): 371–400.
2.
Bennett, James T., and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. 1998. Cancerscam: Diversion of federal cancer funds to politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
3.
Bishop, John A., and Jang H. Yoo. 1985. “Health scare,” excise taxes and advertising ban in the cigarette demand and supply. Southern Economic Journal52 (2): 402–411.
4.
Dixon, Lee, and James Cox. 2002. State management and allocation of tobacco settlement revenue, 2002. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
5.
Ekelund, Robert B., Jr., and Robert D. Tollison. 2001. The interest group theory of government. In The Elgar companion to public choice, ed. William F. Shughart II and Laura Razzolini, 357–378. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
6.
Fishback, Price V., Shawn Kantor, and John Joseph Wallis. 2003. Can the New Deal's three Rs be rehabilitated? A program-by-program, county-by-county analysis. Explorations in Economic History40 (3): 278–307.
7.
Gerson, Stuart M.2005. High Court has no grounds to review ruling in federal tobacco suit. Legal Backgrounder20 (44). Washington, DC: Washington Legal Foundation.
8.
Gross, Cary P., Benny Soffer, Peter B. Bach, Rahul Rajkumar, and Howard P. Forman. 2002. State expenditures for tobacco-control programs and the tobacco settlement. New England Journal of Medicine347 (14): 1080–1086.
9.
Gruber, Jonathan. 2001. Tobacco at the crossroads: The past and future of smoking regulation in the United States.Journal of Economic Perspectives15 (2): 193–212.
10.
Krueger, Anne O.1974. The political economy of the rent-seeking society.American Economic Review64 (3): 1163–1187.
11.
Lacombe, Donald J., and Harold Winter. 2004. In or out? Explaining state shares of the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.International Journal of the Economics of Business11 (3): 279–285.
12.
Levin, Myron. 2005. U.S. calls retreat in tobacco suit proper. Los Angeles Times,June10, p. C1-C1.
13.
Marvel, Harold P.1977. Factory regulation: A reinterpretation of early English experience.Journal of Law and Economics20 (2): 379–402.
14.
Master Settlement Agreement. 1998. http://www.naag.org/backpages/naag/tobacco/msa/msa-pdf (accessed November 25, 2005).
15.
McCormick, Robert E., and Robert D. Tollison. 1981. Politicians, legislation, and the economy: An inquiry into the interest group theory of government. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.
16.
McKinley, Andrew, Lee Dixon, and Amanda Devore. 2003. State management and allocation of tobacco settlement revenue, 2003. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
17.
Milbank Memorial Fund, National Association of State Budget Offices, and the Reforming States Group. 1999. 1997 state healthcare expenditures report. http://www.milbank.org/reports/1997shcer/index.html (accessed April 7, 2004).
18.
Miller, Leonard S., Xuilan Zhang, Thomas Novotny, Dorothy P. Rice, and Wendy Max. 1998. State estimates of Medicaid expenditures attributable to cigarette smoking, fiscal year 1993.Public Health Reports113 (2): 140–151.
19.
National Association of Attorneys General. 2005. http://www.naag.org/issues/issues-tobacco.php (accessed December 21, 2005).
20.
National Library of Medicine. N.d. Directory of health organizations. http://dirline.nlm.nih.gov (accessed January 13, 2003).
21.
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Peltzman, Sam. 1976. Toward a more general theory of regulation.Journal of Law and Economics19 (2): 211–240.
23.
Pender, Geoff. 2005. Barbour wins ruling over tobacco fund. The Sun Herald (Biloxi, MS), August 9.
24.
Richey, Warren. 2005. High Court contains federal RICO powers, Christian Science Monitor, USA Section, October 18, p. 2-2.
25.
Samp, Richard A.2005. United States v. Philip Morris: High Court review denial signals demise of DOJ's suit. Counsel’s Advisory13 (11). Washington, DC: Washington Legal Foundation.
Shughart, William F., II. 1997. The economics of the nanny state. In Taxing choice: The predatory politics of fiscal discrimination, ed. William F. Shughart II, 13–29. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
28.
State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General. 1998. Allocation of settlement proceeds. http://ag.state.nv.us/tobacco/setall.htm (accessed January 16, 2003).
29.
Stevenson, Taylor P. 2004. The political economy of the tobacco settlements. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Mississippi, University.
30.
Stigler, George J.1971. The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science2:3–21.
31.
Tullock, Gordon. 1967. The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies and theft. Western Economic Journal5:224–232.
32.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1998. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1998 (118th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
33.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. Tobacco settlement: States' use of Master Settlement Agreement payments. Report to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate. GAO-01-851. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
34.
Viscusi, W. Kip. 2002a. The new cigarette paternalism.Regulation25 (4): 58–64.
35.
Viscusi, W.2002b. Smoke-filled rooms: A postmortem on the tobacco deal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Williamson, Oliver E.1968. Wage rates as a barrier to entry: The Pennington case in perspective.Quarterly Journal of Economics82 (1): 85–116.
37.
Wallis, John Joseph. 1998. The political economy of New Deal spending revisited, again: With and without Nevada.Explorations in Economic History35 (2): 140–179.
38.
Wilson, Joy Johnson. 1999. Summary of the Attorneys General Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/tmsasumm.htm (accessed November 21, 2002).
