IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/wpaper/122814.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Soda tax incidence and design under monopoly

Author

Listed:
  • Lozachmeur, Jean-Marie
  • Cremer, Helmuth
  • Goulão, Catarina

Abstract

Health damages of an unhealthy good, such as a sugar-sweetened beverage, are misperceived by consumers. Market power affects both output and sugar content and these effects have to be balanced against Pigouvian considerations. Under “pseudo” perfect competition, a Pigouvian tax proportional to sugar content is sufficient to achieve a first best solution. Under monopoly, a specific tax on output achieves an efficient solution, but it must be an affine function of the sugar content. The calibrations of the French and US markets illustrate that both the total tax as well as its sugar component can be positive or negative.

Suggested Citation

  • Lozachmeur, Jean-Marie & Cremer, Helmuth & Goulão, Catarina, 2019. "Soda tax incidence and design under monopoly," TSE Working Papers 19-992, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jul 2020.
    • Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:122814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2019/wp_tse_992.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cremer, Helmuth & Goulão, Catarina & Roeder, Kerstin, 2016. "Earmarking and the political support of fat taxes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 258-267.
    2. Helmuth Cremer & Philippe De Donder & Darío Maldonado & Pierre Pestieau, 2012. "Taxing Sin Goods and Subsidizing Health Care," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(1), pages 101-123, March.
    3. Haavio, Markus & Kotakorpi, Kaisa, 2011. "The political economy of sin taxes," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 575-594, May.
    4. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    5. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B. Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 202-227, Summer.
    6. Marion Devaux & Franco Sassi & Jody Church & Michele Cecchini & Francesca Borgonovi, 2011. "Exploring the Relationship Between Education and Obesity," OECD Journal: Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2011(1), pages 1-40.
    7. Kotakorpi, Kaisa, 2008. "The incidence of sin taxes," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 95-99, January.
    8. A. Michael Spence, 1975. "Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 417-429, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rosella Levaggi & Carmen Marchiori & Paolo M. Panteghini, 2022. "Lifestyle taxes in the presence of profit shifting," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 81-96, September.
    2. Thomas Eichner & Marco Runkel, 2022. "Non-Paternalistic Foundation of Sugar Taxation and Missing Markets for Sugar Content," CESifo Working Paper Series 9583, CESifo.
    3. Gonçalves, Judite & Pereira dos Santos, João, 2020. "Brown sugar, how come you taste so good? The impact of a soda tax on prices and consumption," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cremer, Helmuth & Goulão, Catarina & Roeder, Kerstin, 2016. "Earmarking and the political support of fat taxes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 258-267.
    2. Zarko Y. Kalamov & Marco Runkel, 2022. "Taxation of unhealthy food consumption and the intensive versus extensive margin of obesity," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(5), pages 1294-1320, October.
    3. Bossi, Luca & Calcott, Paul & Petkov, Vladimir, 2013. "Optimal tax rules and addictive consumption," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 984-1000.
    4. Maria Alessandra Antonelli & Valeria De Bonis & Angelo Castaldo & Alessandrao Gandolfo, 2022. "Sin goods taxation: an encompassing model," Public Finance Research Papers 52, Istituto di Economia e Finanza, DSGE, Sapienza University of Rome.
    5. Işıl Fulya ORKUNOĞLU-ŞAHİN & Ahmet Burçin YERELİ, 2018. "Mükelleflerin Vergiye Direnme Yöntemleri ve Türkiye’de Günah Vergilerindeki Artışların Değerlendirilmesi," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society, issue 26(35).
    6. Luis Rodrigo Arnabal, 2021. "Optimal design of sin taxes in the presence of nontaxable sin goods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(7), pages 1580-1599, July.
    7. Martin Gaynor, "undated". "What Do We Know About Competition and Quality in Health Care Markets?," GSIA Working Papers 2006-E62, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    8. Veiga, André, 2018. "A note on how to sell a network good," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 114-126.
    9. Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2012. "Myopia, regrets, and risky behaviors," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 19(2), pages 288-317, April.
    10. Nagurney, Anna & Saberi, Sara & Shukla, Shivani & Floden, Jonas, 2015. "Supply chain network competition in price and quality with multiple manufacturers and freight service providers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 248-267.
    11. Luca Lambertini, 2007. "Dynamic Spatial Monopoly with Product Development," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 157-166.
    12. Joaquín Coleff, 2020. "Can consumer complaints reduce product reliability? Should we worry?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 74-96, January.
    13. L. Lambertini & R. Orsini, 1998. "Vertical Differentiation With A Positional Good," Working Papers 306, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    14. Chen, Jingxian & Liang, Liang & Yang, Feng, 2015. "Cooperative quality investment in outsourcing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 174-191.
    15. Zarko Kalamov, 2020. "A sales tax is better at promoting healthy diets than the fat tax and the thin subsidy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(3), pages 353-366, March.
    16. Pierre Mérel & Richard J. Sexton, 2012. "Will geographical indications supply excessive quality?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 39(4), pages 567-587, September.
    17. L. Colombo & L. Lambertini, 2003. "Dynamic Advertising Under Vertical Product Differentiation," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 261-280, November.
    18. Crawford, Gregory S & Shum, Matthew, 2007. "Monopoly Quality Degradation and Regulation in Cable Television," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(1), pages 181-219, February.
    19. Cellini, Roberto & Siciliani, Luigi & Straume, Odd Rune, 2018. "A dynamic model of quality competition with endogenous prices," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 190-206.
    20. Lambertini, Luca, 1997. "On the provision of product quality by a labor-managed monopolist," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 279-283, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    sin tax; tax incidence; misperception; monopoly;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H22 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Incidence
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:122814. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tsetofr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.