Decision‐Making Under Risk in the Market for Illegal Drugs: A Supply‐Side Analysis

ABSTRACT Most economic models of the illegal drugs market focus on demand‐side behavior. However, in imperfectly competitive markets such as the illegal drugs market, it is the seller who determines price. Moreover, even models that focus on supply‐side behavior often ignore key factors such as risk. This paper develops an expected utility model of a risk‐averse seller. We find that under risk aversion, increasing punishment costs (i.e., severity) is more effective than increased enforcement (i.e., certainty) and demand reduction is more effective than interdiction. If risk neutrality is assumed, increases in severity and certainty have the same deterrent effect. Under risk neutrality, the deterrent effect of demand reduction policies dominates all other interdiction policies. These results lend theoretical reinforcement to the growing policy bias in favor of demand‐side intervention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bulletin of Economic Research
Published
2024-11-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/boer.12475
Primary Topic
Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Decision‐Making Under Risk in the Market for Illegal Drugs: A Supply‐Side Analysis

Ardeshir J. Dalal, Sudhakar Raju
Bulletin of Economic Research
Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
article

Decision‐Making Under Risk in the Market for Illegal Drugs: A Supply‐Side Analysis

Ardeshir J. Dalal, Sudhakar Raju
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Most economic models of the illegal drugs market focus on demand‐side behavior. However, in imperfectly competitive markets such as the illegal drugs market, it is the seller who determines price. Moreover, even models that focus on supply‐side behavior often ignore key factors such as risk. This paper develops an expected utility model of a risk‐averse seller. We find that under risk aversion, increasing punishment costs (i.e., severity) is more effective than increased enforcement (i.e., certainty) and demand reduction is more effective than interdiction. If risk neutrality is assumed, increases in severity and certainty have the same deterrent effect. Under risk neutrality, the deterrent effect of demand reduction policies dominates all other interdiction policies. These results lend theoretical reinforcement to the growing policy bias in favor of demand‐side intervention.

Bulletin of Economic ResearchVol. 77(2)
Northern Illinois University (US), Rockhurst University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.