New York’s Smoke-Free Regulations: Effects On Employment And Sales In The Hospitality Industry

Authors’ Reason for the Need for the Study

This paper focuses on reviewing an article about the economic effect on New York’s bar and restaurant industry after the implementation of smoke-free laws.  This article will describe the authors’ argument on the need for a research, including the level on which the authors synthesized and the in-depth analysis of the existing research materials to justify the reason as to why this study is the next reasonable step in the line of research. This paper will also describe the guiding theory in research and assessment on whether the article has made it clear how the authors used it to structure the study as well asthe addressed problem, the aim of the study, research questions, and corresponding hypotheses and quality assessment of the theory.  The author’s methodology and design justification will be discussed as well as an analysis and position based on the argument of the Krathwohl model relative to the links in the chain.  Lastly, I will discuss any limitations in the article and the suggestions for strengthening and build upon those areas. 

The main purpose of smoke-free laws is to protect the health of hospitality workers who risk contracting lung cancer as respiratory health issues due to secondhand smoke. Despite the good intentions of the smoke-free policies, there have been arguments suggesting that smoke-free hotels and restaurants dining regulations may cause a negative economic impact on the industry. According to the author, most of the arguments that purport that the laws are affecting the economy are subjective and focus on individuals like the hotel owner’s opinion, rather than focusing on the overall market. Moreover, these researches are mostly funded by cigarette manufacturing organizations. The researchers outlined in their article the intent to research changes in employment and taxable sales in hotels and restaurants located in five counties in New York State where smoke-free dining regulations have been implemented since 1995 (Hyland, Puli, Cummings, &Sciandra, 2013).  The analysis results were based on the outlined data sources and variables, which included taxable sales and employment levels.  The criteria established for the variables are only New York counties whose regulations require 100 percent smoke-free dining and prohibit smoking in the restaurant unless the restaurant has a separate ventilation system. The criteria used to qualify hotel and a restaurant is their operations for more than a year under 100% smoke-free dining. This shows samples obtained by the author are relevant to the study.

Description of the Theory

Theory and research are complementary to one another.  A theory is a widely accepted principle or explanation.  Whereas research is the work used to strengthen, question or revise a theory.  The Krathwohl’s chain of reasoning critically analyzes the individual elements based on the relationship between theory and research (Krathwohl, 2015). New York’s smoke-free regulations and its impact on sales and employment in the hospitality industry are analyzed using a quantitative methodology to answer a research questionto substantiate that the hospitality industry has not been detrimentally impacted economically.  The author has also employed the use of multivariate linear regression control the deviation brought about by other factors that affect the sales and employment e.g. season and the unemployment rate at the counties. The author justified on the lack of the control sample on the non-uniformity of the smoke-free laws in the various states (Hyland, 2013). 

The researchers justified their research by explaining the need for additional research under the following circumstances.  1.) The existing research on the effect of smoke-free restrictions led to diverse conclusions, 2.) Conducted research did not thoroughly examine any employment level changes due to the implementation of smoke-free regulations, and 3.) There remains an active debate about the effects of smoking restrictions on the economic impact to businesses (Hyland, Puli, Cummings, &Sciandra, 2013). The researchers noted that the most rigorous research that used objective measurements of sales and employment to determine the economic effects of smoke-free regulations found no negative effect to bars and restaurants. Research that reported adverse economic effects of smoke-free regulations relied generally on subjective measurements such consumers, employees and restaurant owners’ opinions or surveys sponsored or funded by the tobacco industry.  These two kinds of findings one based on subjective measurements while the other on objective measurements left a gap, that the article has made some effort to bridge(Densen, 2012). 

The researchers used cumulativedata for hotels and restaurants from theTaxation and FinanceDepartment ofNew York State of for the period March 1990 to February 2000 for each county.  The researchers obtained restaurants and hotels employment data from each of New York counties department of labor in the New York State for the period January 1990 up to December 1999 (Hyland, Puli, Cummings, &Sciandra, 2013)

The researchers used multivariate data analysis to determine if smoke-free regulations caused a negative economic impact on the New York restaurant and hotel industry.  There were two research models:  1.) all New York State counties that implemented smoke-free regulations, and 2.) a county-specific model that uses the five counties that implemented smoke-free regulations. The models used four independent variables:  1.) smoke-free law indicator, 2.) the time of year, 3.) season, due to seasonal sales and 4.) The unemployment rate, given the selected periods, is peak employment seasons(Creswell, & Clark, 2011).

Description of the Problem in Question

The chain of reasoning in the article appears to be accordance with the Krathwohl mode.  The article builds an authenticated reference paper to substantiate the position that smoke-free regulations imposed upon restaurants and hotels in New York have not had a negative economic impact on the industry.   The researchers appropriately linked the theory and the findings together through the collected research data. The researchers followed the Krathwohl chain of research (Krathwohl, 2015) by linking data back to the overarching question. For example, the study requiredidentification of the research hypothesis that provided a foundation to conduct the study.

The weak links include lack of specificity relative to the comprehensive principle of the study.  The study also references adverse health effects of smoking but does not elaborate.  The study could have further explored some of the legal liability of allowing smoking in the workplace through the citation of scientific research linking smoking and adverse health effects (Zellers, Thomas, & Ashe, 2007). The study may have attributed the implementation of the smoke-free regulations with a corporate social responsibility of a smoke-free work environment.  Consumers tend to patron establishments that have an ethical policy and an established corporate social responsibility policy. Lack of control sample discredits the findings as they seem biased. The shortcoming can be linked to the research method used by the author, hence questioning the whole study (Parsa, Lord, Putrevu, &Kreeger, 2015). 

Conclusion

The author has of the article has managed to bring to light the major reasons that prompted him to conduct the research, by formulating a proper problem statement. A well-conducted research requires that the theory is in line with the data presented. The author has managed to put in place. Moreover, the author has gone ahead to interpret the data, to make it simple for the reader to understand. The author ensured that several samples are included in the research that is also a plus. In my view, the author has adhered to the research guidelines in writing the article. The discussion on the article is also convincing as it disseminates the finding properly while highlighting the key issues the research was to address. The only weakness that the article had was on the generalization of the study whereby it fails to elaborate but rather just mentions issues like lung cancer is not elaborate on how it is related to smoking or even how secondhand smoke is generated.

References

Bennett, J. & Bennett, J. (2015). Evaluation Methods In Research (1st ed.). London: Continnum.

Creswell, J. (2016). A concise introduction to mixed methods research (1st ed.).

Creswell, J. & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (1st ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Densen, P. (2012). Problems in the Development of Adequate Criteria, 11(4), 207-208. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196211040-00005

Hyland, A. (2013). New York’s Smoke-free Regulations:: Effects on Employment and Sales in the Hospitality Industry. Cornell Hotel And Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 9-16. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001088040304400301

Hyland, A., Puli, V., Cummings, M., &Sciandra, R. (2013).New York’s smoke-free regulations: Effects on employment and sales in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 9-16. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/209703335?accountid=28180

Krathwohl, D. R., & Smith, N. L. (2015). How to prepare a dissertation proposal: Suggestions for students in education and the social and behavioral sciences. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Parsa, H. G., Lord, K. R., Putrevu, S., &Kreeger, J. (2015). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in services: Will consumers pay for it? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 250–260. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.08.006

Patton, M. & Patton, M. (2012). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Young, P. &Schmid, C. (2011). Scientific social surveys and research (1st ed.). New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India.

Zellers, L., Thomas, M. A., & Ashe, M. (2007).Legal risks to employers who allow smoking in the workplace. American Journal of Public Health, 97(8), 1376–1382. doi:10.2105/ajph.2006.094102