{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Rethinking tobacco policy: Why a Cap-and-Levy scheme can outperform the UK’s sales ban
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.
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.