Rethinking tobacco policy: Why a Cap-and-Levy scheme can outperform the UK’s sales ban

IF 1.3 Q3 ECONOMICS
Joan E. Madia
{"title":"Rethinking tobacco policy: Why a Cap-and-Levy scheme can outperform the UK’s sales ban","authors":"Joan E. Madia","doi":"10.1016/j.rie.2025.101084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The United Kingdom aims to be smoke-free by 2030, and in pursuit of this goal, has proposed a Generational Sales Ban (GSB). While somewhat innovative, the GSB exclusively targets future generations, potentially overlooking the immediate health burdens and illicit market risks associated with current smokers. This study argues for a Cap-and-Levy scheme as a more comprehensive and efficient alternative. By directly addressing supply, consumption, and state tax revenues, a Cap-and-Levy approach offers a broader impact on smoking prevalence including existing smokers, while potentially mitigating the unintended consequences of a sales ban, such as fuelling the illicit trade and reducing tax revenues. This analysis suggests that a Cap-and-Levy mechanism warrants consideration as a policy instrument that could outperform the GSB in achieving significant and immediate reductions in smoking-related harm, without the unintended consequences that the GSB would produce.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46094,"journal":{"name":"Research in Economics","volume":"79 4","pages":"Article 101084"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090944325000572","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The United Kingdom aims to be smoke-free by 2030, and in pursuit of this goal, has proposed a Generational Sales Ban (GSB). While somewhat innovative, the GSB exclusively targets future generations, potentially overlooking the immediate health burdens and illicit market risks associated with current smokers. This study argues for a Cap-and-Levy scheme as a more comprehensive and efficient alternative. By directly addressing supply, consumption, and state tax revenues, a Cap-and-Levy approach offers a broader impact on smoking prevalence including existing smokers, while potentially mitigating the unintended consequences of a sales ban, such as fuelling the illicit trade and reducing tax revenues. This analysis suggests that a Cap-and-Levy mechanism warrants consideration as a policy instrument that could outperform the GSB in achieving significant and immediate reductions in smoking-related harm, without the unintended consequences that the GSB would produce.
重新思考烟草政策:为什么限额和征税计划可以胜过英国的销售禁令
英国的目标是到2030年实现无烟,为了实现这一目标,英国提出了一项代际销售禁令(GSB)。GSB虽然有些创新,但专门针对后代,可能忽视了当前吸烟者的直接健康负担和非法市场风险。这项研究认为限额和征税计划是一个更全面和有效的替代方案。通过直接解决供应、消费和州税收问题,“限量和征税”方法对吸烟流行率(包括现有吸烟者)产生了更广泛的影响,同时可能减轻销售禁令带来的意想不到的后果,如助长非法贸易和减少税收。这一分析表明,限额和征税机制值得考虑作为一种政策工具,它可以在实现显著和立即减少吸烟相关危害方面优于GSB,而不会产生GSB可能产生的意外后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
89 days
期刊介绍: Established in 1947, Research in Economics is one of the oldest general-interest economics journals in the world and the main one among those based in Italy. The purpose of the journal is to select original theoretical and empirical articles that will have high impact on the debate in the social sciences; since 1947, it has published important research contributions on a wide range of topics. A summary of our editorial policy is this: the editors make a preliminary assessment of whether the results of a paper, if correct, are worth publishing. If so one of the associate editors reviews the paper: from the reviewer we expect to learn if the paper is understandable and coherent and - within reasonable bounds - the results are correct. We believe that long lags in publication and multiple demands for revision simply slow scientific progress. Our goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. We expect the associate editor to provide a more detailed evaluation within three weeks so that the editors can make a final decision before the month expires. In the (rare) case of a revision we allow four months and in the case of conditional acceptance we allow two months to submit the final version. In both cases we expect a cover letter explaining how you met the requirements. For conditional acceptance the editors will verify that the requirements were met. In the case of revision the original associate editor will do so. If the revision cannot be at least conditionally accepted it is rejected: there is no second revision.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信