Search

International audience; This article compares the current legal regime of cannabis in France, based on the Prohibition Law of 31 December 1970, with different legalization scenarios. Despite the difficulties inherent in observing an underground market, a welfare function is estimated under different legal regime scenarios. Decriminalization of consumption would increase welfare. Full liberalization of the cannabis market would generate a higher positive variation in welfare, while resolving the issue of prohibition. The economic benefit of full legalization of cannabis could be attributable not only to the creation of tax revenue but also to the saving of public resources currently allocated to repression.

International audience

International audience

Background: Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in European countries. In countries with repressive cannabis policies, prevalence is not lower than in those with tolerant laws. Repressive policies not only have uncertain benefits but they are also expensive. Economists tend to believe that good public policies minimize social costs; that is, they help to improve collective wellbeing at a lower cost. Method: The paper draws on a review of international literature on cannabis legislative models around the world. After a description of some of the fundamental concepts of a market economy, several existing policy scenarios will be presented and analyzed from an economic perspective. Strength and weaknesses will be summarized for each alternative. Results: In addition to consumption tolerance in countries such as the Netherlands, recent decriminalization of domestic markets in the Unites States and Uruguay present alternatives to reduce the negative impact of cannabis on society. Earlier initiation age and rise in consumption are unintended potential consequences of decriminalization that need to be addressed by public authorities when designing a liberalized cannabis policy environment. Price is a key variable that needs to be addressed to prevent a rise in consumption. Conclusion: Repressive cannabis policies are expensive and have limited impact on consumption. Consumption legalization significantly reduces expenses for repression and law enforcement, allowing for the allocation of more resources to other targets such as education and prevention. With legalization of supply along with consumption, repression and law enforcement costs are reduced even further. Moreover, a legal market would create employment and generate tax revenues that could be allocated to the prevention of increased consumption. Legalizing cannabis would not lead to a sudden rise in consumption, providing the duty imposed by the state kept the product at its current price.

National audience

International audience; With debates surrounding the decriminalisation of certain illegal drugs raging in many countries around the world, this new book is a timely and sober reflection on one of the biggest social problems facing the world at large. Of interest not only to economists, but also to criminologists and those involved in policy-making, The Economics of Illegal Drugs is an accessible, comprehensive and international review of the topic and the usefulness of applying microeconomic analysis to drug production and distribution.

National audience

The Stockholm toll causes, as predicted by theory, a reduction in traffic, leading to increased speeds, and to time gains for remaining car-users. These gains, calculated to be about (+19 M€) per year, appear to be modest, much lower than similar gains estimated in London, because congestion was moderate and reducing it to its optimal level, which is what the toll achieves, does not represent massive time gains. The toll also causes a loss for evicted car-users, for about (-6 M €) per year. It also produces environmental benefits, for an estimated (+11 M€) per year. A major cost is the implementation cost, less than half the cost experienced in London, but nevertheless high at about (-56 M€) per year. Finally, the toll led to an increase in public transport congestion tentatively estimated to be above (-18 M€) per year, in spite of a very costly (-61 M€, per year) increase in bus supply that may or may not be counted in an evaluation of the scheme. For an urban toll to produce net benefits, it seems that three conditions are required: a relatively high degree of road congestion, a reasonably cheap implementation system, and a relatively low level of public transport congestion., Le péage de Stockholm engendre, comme prévu par la théorie, une réduction du trafic, une augmentation de la vitesse et des gains de temps pour ceux qui continuent d'utiliser leur automobile. Ces gains (+19 M€) par an sont faibles, bien moindres que ceux observés à Londres, car la congestion était peu importante, et la ramener à son niveau optimal, ce que fait le péage, n'engendre pas de gains très élevés. Le péage entraîne aussi une perte pour les automobilistes qui doivent abandonner ce moyen de transport (-6 M€) par an. Le péage permet également de réaliser des gains environnementaux de (+11 M€) par an. Du côté des coûts, le coût d'implémentation est une charge importante, moins de la moitié de celle recensée à Londres, mais toutefois proche de (-56 M€) par an. Le péage provoque une augmentation de la congestion des transports publics (-18 M€) par an malgré une augmentation de l'offre de bus -61 M€ par an. In fine, les coûts du péage de Stockholm s'avèrent plus importants que les bénéfices d'où une importante leçon. Trois conditions sont requises pour qu'un péage urbain soit un succès : une forte congestion, un coût d'implémentation du système raisonnable, une faible congestion des transports publics.

International audience

International audience

On the southern part of the Parisian Maréchaux' boulevards, the old bus line Petite Ceinture has been replaced by a modern tramway (T3). Simultaneously, the road-space has been narrowed by about a third. A survey conducted on 1,000 users of the T3 shows that the tramway hardly generated any modal report from the private cars (PC) towards the public transit (PT). However, it did generate important intra-modal transfers: from bus and subways towards tramway concerning the PT, surely from Maréchaux' boulevards towards the Parisian Ring-Road (boulevard périphérique, PRR) and/or adjacent streets for the PC. The various benefits and costs of these changes are evaluated in this research. The welfare gains made by PT users are more than compensated by the time losses of the motorists, and in particular, by the additional cost of road congestion on the PRR. The same conclusion applies with regard to CO2 emissions: the reductions saved with the replacement of the busses and some (few) PC are less important than the increased pollution induced by the lengthening of the automobile trips and the increased congestion on the PRR. Even if one ignores the initial investment of 350 M€, the social impact of the T3 project, illustrated by its Clear Discount Value (CDV), is strongly negative. This is especially true for suburbanites. Concerning the lonely inhabitants (electors) of Paris, our analysis shows that they pocket the main part of the benefits while supporting a weak fraction of the costs.

Cette communication dans un congrès a fait l'objet d'une publication World Bank : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01897962v1; International audience

International audience

ED EPS; Sur le quart des boulevards des Maréchaux, le bus a été remplacé par un tramway et simultanément les voies routières ont été rétrécies. Une enquête auprès de 1000 usagers montre que le tramway n'a engendré presque aucun transfert modal de la voiture vers les TC. Mais il a engendré d'importants transferts intramodaux, du bus et du métro vers le tramway pour les TC, des boulevards des Maréchaux vers le périphérique pour les voitures. Les gains et les pertes associés à ces changements sont évalués. Le gain très réel des usagers des TC est plus que compensé par la perte des automobilistes, et en particulier par les coûts externes de congestion sur le périphérique. Il en va de même en ce qui concerne les rejets de CO2 : les réductions causées par l'élimination des autobus et de quelques voitures sont bien moins importantes que les augmentations causées par l'allongement des trajets automobiles et les encombrements accrus, particulièrement sur le périphérique. Même en ignorant les 350 millions d'euros d'investissement, le bilan pour l'ensemble des usagers est fortement négatif. Il l'est surtout pour les habitants de la banlieue. Mais il ne l'est sans doute pas si l'on considère les seuls habitants de Paris : ils empochent l'essentiel des bénéfices tout en supportant une faible partie des coûts.

Comparaison des règles de responsabilité du constructeur en France et aux USA