IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0006118.html

Economic and econometric methods to measure the illicit tobacco trade: A scoping review

Author

Listed:
  • Pyi Pyi Phyo
  • Natalie Walker
  • Braden Te Ao
  • Erwann Sbai
  • Chris Bullen

Abstract

This scoping review aimed to identify suitable economic and econometric methods for measuring the illicit tobacco trade. We searched six key databases for public health and economics papers (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, EconLit, ABI/Inform, and Medline), two economic working paper platforms (SSRN and IDEAS), and grey literature via Google and expert-identified articles. Initial screening was undertaken by all authors, with at least three authors conducting a second screening and final paper selection. We included English-language papers (published from 2010 to July 2023) that applied economic or econometric models to illicit tobacco or related topics. We examined the methods, assessing their strengths and limitations from a health equity perspective, and evaluated their applicability to priority populations (rather than assessing the quality of individual models). The review included 39 studies: 16 applied consumption gap analysis (CGA), and 23 used other economic or econometric models (i.e., Exponentiated, Discrete Choice, Extended Cost–Benefit Analysis and A Static Partial Equilibrium, Consumption, Risk Prediction, A Forward-looking Behavioural, Integrated Micro-Macro Demand, Endogenous Switching Regression, Multiple and Non-Linear Regression, Dynamic Projection, Demand-driven Analytical, Econometric Regressions and Modelling and Two-way Fixed Effects models). CGA was primarily used to estimate the size and trends of the illicit tobacco market, whereas other models assessed and quantified past, existing, or potential behaviours related to engagement with tobacco and other products, including illicit tobacco. Only six of the 39 studies addressed health equity. Measuring the illicit tobacco trade is challenging due to its covert nature, methodological limitations, and scarce high-quality data. Method selection depends on the research objective: CGA is suitable for assessing national market trends but is limited in evaluating subpopulations or future policy impacts. Other non-CGA-based economic and econometric models are better for analysing or predicting user behaviour, including from a health equity perspective. Implications for public health: Measuring the illicit tobacco trade is challenging. This review identified a wide variety of economic or econometric methods on this topic and highlighted the need for a greater equity focus when applying these methods. Triangulating findings across the various methods is important moving forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Pyi Pyi Phyo & Natalie Walker & Braden Te Ao & Erwann Sbai & Chris Bullen, 2026. "Economic and econometric methods to measure the illicit tobacco trade: A scoping review," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-26, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0006118
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0006118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006118
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0006118&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0006118?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pgph00:0006118. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    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.