IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausecr/v51y2018i1p41-51.html

Grattan Institute's Case for Sugar Tax Is Not Proven

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Pincus

Abstract

Duckett, Swerissen and Wiltshire () advocated a 40†cent tax per 100g of sugar in sugar†sweetened beverages (SSB), because the tax would reduce the cost burden on the non†obese. Duckett, Swerissen and Wiltshire took these ‘third†party’ costs as indices of market failure. However, their distributional analysis is not an appropriate framework for the assessment of economic efficiency. Moreover, they did not quantify the causal mechanisms through which a small weight loss would appreciably lower health costs and increase employment of the obese. There may be an economic case for such a tax, but Duckett, Swerissen and Wiltshire have not made it.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Pincus, 2018. "Grattan Institute's Case for Sugar Tax Is Not Proven," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 51(1), pages 41-51, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausecr:v:51:y:2018:i:1:p:41-51
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8462.12251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.12251
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-8462.12251?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Yucai Wang, 2015. "The impact of soda taxes on consumer welfare: implications of storability and taste heterogeneity," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 409-441, June.
    2. Anurag Sharma & Katharina Hauck & Bruce Hollingsworth & Luigi Siciliani, 2014. "The Effects Of Taxing Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages Across Different Income Groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1159-1184, September.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & Christiane Schroeter, 2012. "When Do Fat Taxes Increase Consumer Welfare?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1367-1374, November.
    4. John Freebairn, 2010. "Taxation and Obesity?," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 43(1), pages 54-62, March.
    5. Nomaguchi, Takeshi & Cunich, Michelle & Zapata-Diomedi, Belen & Veerman, J. Lennert, 2017. "The impact on productivity of a hypothetical tax on sugar-sweetened beverages," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(6), pages 715-725.
    6. Bernheim, B. Douglas, 2016. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Unified Approach to Behavioral Welfare Economics1," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 12-68, April.
    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. Sainsbury, Emma & Magnusson, Roger & Thow, Anne-Marie & Colagiuri, Stephen, 2020. "Explaining resistance to regulatory interventions to prevent obesity and improve nutrition: A case-study of a sugar-sweetened beverages tax in Australia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. I.Fazrakhmanov & M. Lukyanova & V. Kovshov & A. Farrakhetdinova & J. Putyatinskaya, 2018. "Economic Assessment and Strategic Potential of Agro Industries: The Case of Sugar Industry," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4), pages 239-254.
    3. repec:ers:journl:v:volumexxi:y:2018:i:issue4:p:239-254 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Julio C. Arteaga & Daniel Flores & Edgar Luna, 2021. "The effect of a soft drink tax in Mexico: evidence from time series industry data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(2), pages 349-366, April.
    5. Peter Lloyd & Donald MacLaren, 2019. "Should We Tax Sugar and If So How?," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 52(1), pages 19-40, March.

    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. John Gibson & Steven Tucker & Geua Boe-Gibson, 2019. "Testing an Information Intervention: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Jamie Oliver on Fizzy Drinks Demand," Working Papers in Economics 19/08, University of Waikato.
    2. Alyssa J. Moran & Yuxuan Gu & Sasha Clynes & Attia Goheer & Christina A. Roberto & Anne Palmer, 2020. "Associations between Governmental Policies to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Supermarket Purchases and Individual, Retailer, and Community Health Outcomes: An Integrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-23, October.
    3. Fabrice Etilé & Sébastien Lecocq & Christine Boizot-Szantai, 2021. "Market heterogeneity and the distributional incidence of soft-drink taxes: evidence from France [Regressive sin taxes, with an application to the optimal soda tax]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 915-939.
    4. Emily Wang & Christian Rojas & Francesca Colantuoni, 2017. "Heterogeneous Behavior, Obesity, and Storability in the Demand for Soft Drinks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(1), pages 18-33.
    5. Peter Lloyd & Donald MacLaren, 2019. "Should We Tax Sugar and If So How?," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 52(1), pages 19-40, March.
    6. SERSE Valerio,, 2019. "Do sugar taxes affect the right consumers ?," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2019017, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Sainsbury, Emma & Magnusson, Roger & Thow, Anne-Marie & Colagiuri, Stephen, 2020. "Explaining resistance to regulatory interventions to prevent obesity and improve nutrition: A case-study of a sugar-sweetened beverages tax in Australia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    8. Ertian Chen, 2025. "Model-Adaptive Approach to Dynamic Discrete Choice Models with Large State Spaces," Papers 2501.18746, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2026.
    9. Malte Dold, 2023. "Behavioural normative economics: foundations, approaches and trends," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 137-150, June.
    10. Härkänen, Tommi & Kotakorpi, Kaisa & Pietinen, Pirjo & Pirttilä, Jukka & Reinivuo, Heli & Suoniemi, Ilpo, 2014. "The welfare effects of health-based food tax policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 196-206.
    11. Rachel Griffith & Martin O’Connell & Kate Smith, 2018. "Corrective Taxation and Internalities from Food Consumption," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 64(1), pages 1-14.
    12. Irz, Xavier & Leroy, Pascal & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Economic assessment of nutritional recommendations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 188-210.
    13. repec:plo:pone00:0210192 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Hasan, Syed & Ratna, Nazmun & Shakur, Shamim, 2019. "Exchange rate, remittances and expenditure of foreign-born households: evidence from Australia," GLO Discussion Paper Series 331, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    15. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    16. Fabrice Etilé & Sebastien Lecocq & Christine Boizot-Szantai, 2018. "The Incidence of Soft-Drink Taxes on Consumer Prices and Welfare: Evidence from the French " Soda Tax"," PSE Working Papers halshs-01808198, HAL.
    17. Andalón, Mabel & Gibson, John, 2018. "The ‘soda tax’ is unlikely to make Mexicans lighter or healthier: New evidence on biases in elasticities of demand for soda," MPRA Paper 86370, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Ghesla, Claus & Grieder, Manuel & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Nudging the poor and the rich – A field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    19. Lin, Biing-Hwan & Dong, Diansheng & Carlson, Andrea & Rahkovsky, Ilya, 2017. "Potential dietary outcomes of changing relative prices of healthy and less healthy foods: The case of ready-to-eat breakfast cereals," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 77-88.
    20. Mabel Andalon & John Gibson, 2017. "The 'Soda Tax' is Unlikely to Make Mexicans Lighter: New Evidence on Biases in Elasticities of Demand for Soda," Working Papers in Economics 17/07, University of Waikato.
    21. Yichen Zhong & Amy H. Auchincloss & Brian K. Lee & Ryan M. McKenna & Brent A. Langellier, 2020. "Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ausecr:v:51:y:2018:i:1:p:41-51. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.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.