Watching the grass grow: does recreational cannabis legalization affect retail and agricultural wages?

Cannabis legalization Labor market Policy change Wages

Journal

Journal of cannabis research
ISSN: 2522-5782
Titre abrégé: J Cannabis Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101752723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Jul 2022
Historique:
received: 15 06 2021
accepted: 30 06 2022
entrez: 26 7 2022
pubmed: 27 7 2022
medline: 27 7 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Over the past several years, cannabis has become legal for recreational use in many US states and jurisdictions around the world. The opening of these markets has led to the establishment of hundreds of cannabis production and retail firms with accompanying demand for labor, leading to concerns about spillover effects on wages from incumbents. We study the markets for agricultural and retail labor in Washington and Colorado from 2000 to 2019 using differences-in-differences with synthetic controls. We employ employment data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, state-level demographic data from the US Census Bureau, and agricultural data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service. We use the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) for variable selection and classification and regression trees (CART) for chained imputation of missing values. We find little-to-no evidence of a significant difference in weekly wages per worker generated by cannabis legalization: the log of the weekly wage per worker decreases by 0.013 in Washington's agricultural sector (p value 0.091) and increases by 0.059 in Washington's retail sector (p value 0.606). Results in Colorado are qualitatively similar. These results are limited in part by the short post-legalization period of the data. Cannabis legalization is unlikely to negatively impact incumbent agriculture or retail firms through the labor market channel.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Over the past several years, cannabis has become legal for recreational use in many US states and jurisdictions around the world. The opening of these markets has led to the establishment of hundreds of cannabis production and retail firms with accompanying demand for labor, leading to concerns about spillover effects on wages from incumbents.
METHODS METHODS
We study the markets for agricultural and retail labor in Washington and Colorado from 2000 to 2019 using differences-in-differences with synthetic controls. We employ employment data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, state-level demographic data from the US Census Bureau, and agricultural data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service. We use the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) for variable selection and classification and regression trees (CART) for chained imputation of missing values.
RESULTS RESULTS
We find little-to-no evidence of a significant difference in weekly wages per worker generated by cannabis legalization: the log of the weekly wage per worker decreases by 0.013 in Washington's agricultural sector (p value 0.091) and increases by 0.059 in Washington's retail sector (p value 0.606). Results in Colorado are qualitatively similar. These results are limited in part by the short post-legalization period of the data.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Cannabis legalization is unlikely to negatively impact incumbent agriculture or retail firms through the labor market channel.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35883137
doi: 10.1186/s42238-022-00149-6
pii: 10.1186/s42238-022-00149-6
pmc: PMC9316823
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

42

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Am J Public Health. 2017 Aug;107(8):1329-1331
pubmed: 28640679
J Stat Softw. 2010;33(1):1-22
pubmed: 20808728
Tob Control. 2016 Sep;26(5):509-517
pubmed: 27601453
Econ Hum Biol. 2014 Jan;12:45-55
pubmed: 23891422
Eur J Health Econ. 2020 Jul;21(5):717-728
pubmed: 32108274
J Policy Anal Manage. 2019;38(2):455-80
pubmed: 30883060
Health Econ. 2021 Feb;30(2):453-469
pubmed: 33166025
Addiction. 2017 Nov;112(11):1992-2001
pubmed: 28613454
SSM Popul Health. 2017 Aug 03;3:649-657
pubmed: 29349253
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 14;10(7):e0132590
pubmed: 26173108
Health Econ. 2017 Oct;26(10):1322-1327
pubmed: 27416978
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2019;45(6):644-663
pubmed: 31603710
Health Econ. 2020 Apr;29(4):419-434
pubmed: 32020740
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2019;45(6):664-672
pubmed: 31264899
Addiction. 2016 Oct;111(10):1764-73
pubmed: 27082374
J Nat Prod. 2016 Feb 26;79(2):324-31
pubmed: 26836472

Auteurs

Sichao Jiang (S)

Department of Economics, University of Oregon, Eugene, 97403, OR, USA.

Keaton Miller (K)

Department of Economics, University of Oregon, Eugene, 97403, OR, USA. keatonm@uoregon.edu.

Classifications MeSH