IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ucozwp/155328.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Effective is Public Policy in Decreasing Soda Consumption? An Assessment of Four Policy Options

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Yizao
  • Lopez, Rigoberto
  • Zhu, Chen

Abstract

This paper examines the effectiveness of four policy options to decrease the consumption of carbonated soft drinks (CSDs). They are: (1) a soda tax (1 cent per ounce), (2) a ban on television advertising, (3) limiting calories to 100 per 12 oz volume; and (4) banning large containers such as the 2 lt. bottle. We apply the Berry, Levinsohn and Pakes (1995) demand model to data for 12 CSD brands in 3 container sizes over seven cities and 36 months to estimate consumers’ preferences for CSD. Limiting the size of containers (e.g., banning the 2 lt. bottle) was found to be the most effective policy option and a tax on calories was found to be the weakest in terms of effectiveness in decreasing the consumption of CSDs. The declines in the national consumption of CSDs were found to be approximately -6.3%, -15.4%, -15.5% and -15.8 for a tax, advertising ban, limiting calories, and restricting container sizes, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Yizao & Lopez, Rigoberto & Zhu, Chen, 2013. "How Effective is Public Policy in Decreasing Soda Consumption? An Assessment of Four Policy Options," Working Paper series 155328, University of Connecticut, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ucozwp:155328
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.155328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/155328/files/wp19.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.155328?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. Chen Zhen & Michael K. Wohlgenant & Shawn Karns & Phillip Kaufman, 2010. "Habit Formation and Demand for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(1), pages 175-193.
    2. Jason M. Fletcher & David Frisvold & Nathan Tefft, 2010. "Can Soft Drink Taxes Reduce Population Weight?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 28(1), pages 23-35, January.
    3. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    4. Tirtha Dhar & Jean‐Paul Chavas & Ronald W. Cotterill & Brian W. Gould, 2005. "An Econometric Analysis of Brand‐Level Strategic Pricing Between Coca‐Cola Company and PepsiCo," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 905-931, December.
    5. Andreyeva, T. & Long, M.W. & Brownell, K.D., 2010. "The impact of food prices on consumption: A systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(2), pages 216-222.
    6. Jean-Pierre Dubé & Günter Hitsch & Puneet Manchanda, 2005. "An Empirical Model of Advertising Dynamics," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 107-144, June.
    7. repec:zwi:journl:v:44:y:2012:i:22:p:2859-2865 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jean-Pierre Dubé, 2004. "Multiple Discreteness and Product Differentiation: Demand for Carbonated Soft Drinks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 66-81, September.
    9. Dhar, Tirtha & Chavas, Jean- Paul & Cotterill, Ronald W. & Gould, Brian W., 2005. "An Economic Analysis of Brand-Level Strategic Pricing Between Coca-Cola Company and Pepsi," Working Papers 201538, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Food System Research Group.
    10. Rigoberto A. Lopez & Kristen L. Fantuzzi, 2012. "Demand for carbonated soft drinks: implications for obesity policy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(22), pages 2859-2865, August.
    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. Zheng, Hualu & Huang, Lu, 2014. "The Incidence of Soda Taxes with Imperfect Information and Strategic Firm Behavior," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170201, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Rigoberto A. Lopez & Yizao Liu & Chen Zhu, 2013. "Spillover and Competitive Effects of Advertising in the Carbonated Soft Drink Market," Working Papers 18, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    2. Liu, Yizao & Lopez, Rigoberto A. & Zhu, Chen, 2014. "The Impact of Four Alternative Policies to Decrease Soda Consumption," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 53-68, April.
    3. Harding, Matthew & Lovenheim, Michael, 2017. "The effect of prices on nutrition: Comparing the impact of product- and nutrient-specific taxes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 53-71.
    4. 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.
    5. Ou Yang & Peter Sivey & Andrea M. de Silva & Anthony Scott, 2016. "Preschool Children’s Demand for Sugar Sweetened Beverages: Evidence from Stated-Preference Panel Data," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2016n25, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    6. Bonnet, Céline & Réquillart, Vincent, 2013. "Tax incidence with strategic firms in the soft drink market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 77-88.
    7. Brueckner, Jan K. & Luo, Dan, 2014. "Measuring strategic firm interaction in product-quality choices: The case of airline flight frequency," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 102-115.
    8. Haeck, Catherine & Lawson, Nicholas & Poirier, Krystel, 2022. "Estimating consumer preferences for different beverages using the BLP approach," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    9. Shinn‐Shyr Wang & Kyle W. Stiegert & Tirtha P. Dhar, 2010. "Strategic Pricing Behavior under Asset Value Maximization," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(2), pages 151-170, June.
    10. Xun Li & Rigoberto A. Lopez, 2015. "Do Brand Advertising Spillovers Matter?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 229-242, April.
    11. Alessandro Bonanno & Carlo Russo & Luisa Menapace, 2018. "Market power and bargaining in agrifood markets: A review of emerging topics and tools," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 6-23, December.
    12. Alberto Salvo, 2009. "Cut‐Throat Fringe Competition In An Emerging Country Market: Tax Evasion Or The Absence Of Market Power?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 677-711, December.
    13. Catherine Haeck & Nicholas Lawson & Krystel Poirier, 2022. "Estimating consumer preferences for different beverages using the BLP approach," Working Papers 22-01, Research Group on Human Capital, University of Quebec in Montreal's School of Management.
    14. Zheng, Hualu & Huang, Lu, 2014. "The Incidence of Soda Taxes with Imperfect Information and Strategic Firm Behavior," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170201, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Hovhannisyan, Vardges & Stiegert, Kyle W. & Bozic, Marin, 2013. "On Endogeneity Of Retail Market Power In An Equilibrium Analysis: A Control Function Approach," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149830, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Bimbo, Francesco & Bonanno, Alessandro & Viscecchia, Rosaria, 2019. "An empirical framework to study food labelling fraud: an application to the Italian extra-virgin olive oil market," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    17. Nicholas Economides & Katja Seim & V. Brian Viard, 2008. "Quantifying the benefits of entry into local phone service," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 699-730, September.
    18. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    19. Sofia Berto Villas‐Boas, 2009. "An empirical investigation of the welfare effects of banning wholesale price discrimination," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(1), pages 20-46, March.
    20. Zhang, Yinjunjie & Palma, Marco A., 2018. "Revisiting the Effects of Sugar Tax on Demand Elasticities - Evidence from the BLP Demand Model," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273978, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Demand and Price Analysis; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Health Economics and Policy; Marketing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:ags:ucozwp:155328. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fmuctus.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.