As an aspiring social scientist with a fondness for quantitative methods, I find fascinating the debates about the value of work done by the type of economist epitomized by Stephen Levitt of Freakonomics fame. Levitt and his kind are accused of avoiding economics toughest questions and instead taking on “cute” questions that can be answered through statistical cleverness. A riveting take on this debate can be found in this 2007 TNR piece by Noam Scheiber.
Though I actually lean towards approval of this “cute” work, if only for its cocktail party value, I was taken aback when I read the following abstract for a paper that is appearing in the new edition of the Journal of North American Applied Economics:
“We evaluate the effect of smoking taxes on toilet paper purchases in 12 American states, and we show their unintended consequences on this seemingly unconnected business. Smoking taxes significantly decrease toilet paper purchases by decreasing the number of bowel movements American workers take per day. We use a regression discontinuity methodology by exploiting toilet paper industry data in the 2 months before and after the implementation of increased taxes on cigarettes in 12 different states. We find that for every additional dollar in taxes, total purchases of toilet paper decreases by two percent. Our findings are significant at a 99% confidence interval. We also estimate the effects of positive and negative price shocks in the world coffee market and find evidence that this also has a significant impact on the toilet paper market. (JEL D87, H15, I222, I128, J13)”
