IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/adl/wpaper/2017-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Grattan Institute's Case for Sugar Tax is Not Proven

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Pincus

    (School of Economics, University of Adelaide)

Abstract

Duckett and Swerissen (2016) 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 and Swerissen 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 casual mechanisms through which a small weight loss would appreciably lower the health costs and increase the employment of the obese. There may be an economic case for such a tax, but Duckett and Swerissen have not made it.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Pincus, 2017. "Grattan Institute's Case for Sugar Tax is Not Proven," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2017-04, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:adl:wpaper:2017-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://media.adelaide.edu.au/economics/papers/doc/wp2017-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:ers:journl:v:volumexxi:y:2018:i:issue4:p:239-254 is not listed on IDEAS

    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. 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. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Martin O'Connell & Pierre Dubois & Rachel Griffith, 2022. "The Use of Scanner Data for Economics Research," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 723-745, August.
    9. Jakina Debnam, 2017. "Selection Effects and Heterogeneous Demand Responses to the Berkeley Soda Tax Vote," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1172-1187.
    10. Pierre Dubois & Rachel Griffith & Martin O'Connell, 2020. "How Well Targeted Are Soda Taxes?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3661-3704, November.
    11. Kao, Kai-Erh & Jones, Amanda C. & Ohinmaa, Arto & Paulden, Mike, 2020. "The health and financial impacts of a sugary drink tax across different income groups in Canada," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    12. David A. Comerford & Leonhard K. Lades, 2022. "Responsibility utility and the difference between preference and desirance: implications for welfare evaluation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 201-224, February.
    13. Daniel J. Benjamin & Mark Alan Fontana & Miles Kimball, 2020. "Reconsidering Risk Aversion," GRU Working Paper Series GRU_2020_026, City University of Hong Kong, Department of Economics and Finance, Global Research Unit.
    14. Sriparna Ghosh & Joshua C. Hall, 2018. "The Political Economy of Soda Taxation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(2), pages 1045-1051.
    15. Haeck, Catherine & Lawson, Nicholas & Poirier, Krystel, 2022. "Estimating consumer preferences for different beverages using the BLP approach," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    16. Franz Dietrich & Antonios Staras & Robert Sugden, 2021. "Savage’s response to Allais as Broomean reasoning," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 143-164, April.
    17. Ary José A. de Souza-Jr. & Flávio Terto, 2021. "The propensity to adaptation under the new era of climate changes," Working Papers REM 2021/0167, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    18. Christoph F. Kurz & Adriana N. König, 2021. "The causal impact of sugar taxes on soft drink sales: evidence from France and Hungary," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(6), pages 905-915, August.
    19. James W. Roberts & Andrew Sweeting, 2016. "Bailouts and the Preservation of Competition: The Case of the Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 257-288, August.
    20. Malte Dold, 2023. "Behavioural normative economics: foundations, approaches and trends," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 137-150, June.

    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:adl:wpaper:2017-04. 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: Qazi Haque (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decadau.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.