A debate in public and academic circles has yet to be settled on the issue of whether banning certain products is effective.
America famously banned alcohol a while ago with very mixed results, and reversed the decision not too long after. Today, the argument continues as we vex about whether, or not, we should permit people private foolishness with drugs.
The paper this week aims to contribute to the are-bans-effective literature focusing on what’s happened to elephant poaching since China promulgated a ban on all ivory trade, effective 2018.
Using data from 43 African and Asian countries and observing the period 2002~22 Tie Shi (et al.) from the Jiaxing University discovered: a) the ban has coincided with a 50% decrease in poaching activity, and b) the price of mammoth tusks has dropped significantly suggesting a reduced demand for the nearest substitute.
Not only therefore has China’s action been effective in curbing illegal elephant poaching but it also seems to have had an effect on Chinese consumer’s preference for the product, and it’s substitute, in general.
There’s no argument, this is good news. However, I’m left wondering what it’d take to progress the 50% poaching reduction to lower levels and whether or not the study has relevance for products, like drugs, where demand appears to be less elastic?
You can read the paper in full via this link An Evaluation of China’s Ivory Ban on Elephant Poaching.
Happy Sunday.