The effectiveness and effects of alcohol regulation: evidence from India

Table 8 The effect of MLDA on drinking and smoking in states never under prohibition (sample: all men 15–50 years old)

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Panel A: dependent variable—drink alcohol	0.1112**	0.1924***	0.0646***	0.0651***	0.0447***
	(0.0386)	(0.0159)	(0.0136)	(0.0143)	(0.0074)
	{0.0115}^††	{0.000}^†††	{0.0003}^†††	{0.0004}^†††	{0.00002}^†††
N	167,068	167,068	166,838	166,838	166,838
R-sq	0.02	0.09	0.15	0.15	0.16
Panel B: dependent variable—smokes	0.1866***	0.2611***	0.0535**	0.0593**	0.0282*
	(0.0424)	(0.0297)	(0.0247)	(0.0253)	(0.0158)
	{0.0005}^†††	{0.000}^†††	{0.0467}^††	{0.0332}^††	{0.095}^†
N	167,082	167,082	166,852	166,852	166,852
R-sq	0.04	0.09	0.19	0.19	0.20

Sample includes all men between ages 15 and 50 in NFHS-2 and NFHS-3. Controls for husband include age, years of schooling, whether he belongs to a white-collar occupation, household size, urban residence, religion, and number of children. Controls for wife also include these variables plus, her attitudes towards domestic violence, whether she has money of her own that she controls, and the wife to husband age and schooling ratios. Standard errors presented in parentheses are clustered by state. *Significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, ***significant at 1%. p values in braces are adjusted using wild-t bootstrap. ^†p ≤ 0.1, ^††p ≤ 0.05, ^†††p ≤ 0.01