Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The effects of a rise in cigarette price on cigarette consumption, tobacco taxation revenues, and of smoking-related deaths in 28 EU countries-- applying threshold regression modelling

  • Chun-Yuan Yeh1,
  • Christian Schafferer1,
  • Jie-Min Lee2Email author,
  • Li-Ming Ho3 and
  • Chi-Jung Hsieh4
BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:676

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4685-x

Received: 17 April 2017

Accepted: 17 August 2017

Published: 21 September 2017

Abstract

Background

European Union public healthcare expenditure on treating smoking and attributable diseases is estimated at over €25bn annually. The reduction of tobacco consumption has thus become one of the major social policies of the EU. This study investigates the effects of price hikes on cigarette consumption, tobacco tax revenues and smoking-caused deaths in 28 EU countries.

Methods

Employing panel data for the years 2005 to 2014 from Euromonitor International, the World Bank and the World Health Organization, we used income as a threshold variable and applied threshold regression modelling to estimate the elasticity of cigarette prices and to simulate the effect of price fluctuations.

Results

The results showed that there was an income threshold effect on cigarette prices in the 28 EU countries that had a gross national income (GNI) per capita lower than US$5418, with a maximum cigarette price elasticity of −1.227. The results of the simulated analysis showed that a rise of 10% in cigarette price would significantly reduce cigarette consumption as well the total death toll caused by smoking in all the observed countries, but would be most effective in Bulgaria and Romania, followed by Latvia and Poland. Additionally, an increase in the number of MPOWER tobacco control policies at the highest level of achievment would help reduce cigarette consumption.

Conclusions

It is recommended that all EU countries levy higher tobacco taxes to increase cigarette prices, and thus in effect reduce cigarette consumption. The subsequent increase in tobacco tax revenues would be instrumental in covering expenditures related to tobacco prevention and control programs.

Keywords

Cigarette price Cigarette consumption Threshold regression model-Smoking-attributable mortality European Union

Background

Smoking prevalence and tobacco control

In 2017, every fourth EU citizen smoked, and the annual death toll from smoking was approximately 700,000 [1]. EU public healthcare expenditure on treating smoking and attributable diseases is estimated at over €25bn annually, constituting a considerable burden on public health care systems. Moreover, €8bn is reportedly lost annually in productivity from deaths, absenteeism and early retirement linked to smoking [2].

The reduction of tobacco consumption has thus become one of the major social policies of the EU and the necessity of implementing the six MPOWER tobacco control policies proposed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2008: (i) increases in the tobacco tax; (ii) monitoring of tobacco usage; (iii) support for quitters; (iv) creation of a smoking-free environment; (v) warning against the dangers of tobacco; (vi) and banning tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. According to Levy et al., if 41 countries across the world had implemented at least one MPOWER policy between 2007 and 2010, the number of smokers would have been cut by 14.8 million, and 7.4 million would have avoided death caused by smoking [3]. In particular, increased tobacco taxation would have saved 3.5 million people, suggesting that taxation would have been the most effective single intervention to reduce demands for cigarettes by raising cigarette prices [3]. The relationship between tobacco price and consumption is also illustrated by the fact that EU countries with lower cigarette prices tend to have higher rates of smoking [4]. Moreover, unlike other policy tools, such as bans on tobacco advertising, taxation not only effectively decreases tobacco consumption but also has the beneficial side effect of increasing national tax revenues [5, 6].

Price elasticities and cigarette demand

The effectiveness of tax increases on cigarette consumption is mainly determined by cigarette price elasticity. Although numerous studies have demonstrated that cigarette price elasticities of low- and middle-income are higher than in high-income countries [7], other studies have shown that price elasticity in several developing countries were similar to those of developed countries [8, 9]. Differences in cigarette price elasticities may have been caused by applying different demand functions, information patterns, and estimation methods [10]. Therefore, employing the same demand function, information pattern, and estimation method can facilitate a standardized comparison of the price elasticity of demand for cigarettes among different countries.

Studies have also shown that there are geographical variations in smoking behaviour [11, 12]. In Eastern European countries, such as Slovenia, Romania and Slovakia, tobacco prevalence in rural and remote areas is higher than in urban areas (World Bank. World Development Indicators (WDI)), whereas in Western European countries, such as Germany, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, the opposite has been reported [13]. Smokers living in rural and remote areas tend to have a lower social and economic status and are more sensitive to price fluctuations [14, 15]; hence, this group reportedly is more likely to opt for lower-priced products, or consider cessation [16, 17]. Moreover, cigarette prices in Eastern European countries are considerably lower than in other parts of Europe, leading to increased illicit trading in cigarettes and to subsequent changes in consumption patterns throughout the European Union [18].

Numerous previous studies have adopted a linear model to estimate cigarette demand structure [4, 9, 19]. However, this estimation method might fail to fully show the price-volume relationship. Huang and Yang estimated the cigarette demand relationship in all states across the US and found that there were income threshold effects in the demand for cigarettes [20], which indicates that there are differences in the cigarette price elasticity of demand at different income thresholds.

The goals of this study

This study employed threshold regression modelling and used income as a threshold variable to estimate the price elasticity of cigarette demand. Furthermore, a cigarette price increase of 10% was used to analyse the effects of price increases on cigarette consumption, tobacco taxation, and the death toll of smoking. The findings of this study may serve as an important reference for EU health management authorities to revise tobacco prevention and control policies.

Methods

Study design and data

In this study, data of all 28 EU countries were collected to construct a cigarette demand structure model. One dependent variable and five independent variables were considered. Per capita cigarette consumption for those aged 15 and over was chosen as the dependent variable. Independent variables comprised cigarette prices, cigarette prices in Eastern European countries, gross national income (GNI), rural population, and the number of MPOWER measures implemented at the highest level of achievement.

Data regarding cigarette consumption, cigarette prices, and cigarette prices in Eastern European countries were extracted from the 2005–2014 Euromonitor International market research database [21]. Euromonitor International is recognized as a leading independent provider of global business intelligence, specialized in creating worldwide data and analysis on consumer products and services. Consumption of cigarette products was calculated based on annual cigarette consumption per capita for those aged 15 and over. The retail price for a pack of cigarettes in each country was calculated by dividing cigarette sales revenues by cigarette consumption, which was further deflated using consumer price indexes.

Cigarette price in Eastern European countries refers to the combined average cigarette price in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia and Bulgaria.

GNI per capita data were converted to US dollars using the World Bank Atlas method [22], divided by the midyear population, and deflated based on consumer price indexes. Required data were retrieved from the World Bank’s database. In this study, the ratio of the rural population to the total population was used in the analysis. Rural population refers to the number of people living in rural areas as defined by the National Statistical Offices and was calculated as the difference between the total population and the urban population. Data on the ratio of the rural population to the total population are World Bank estimates [22] and based on the United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects [23].

As to the number of MPOWER measures implemented at the highest level of achievement by each country in each year, figures for the years 2007 to 2014 were taken from the 2015 WHO report on global tobacco epidemic [17]. Data for the years 2005, 2006 and 2015 were unavailable and treated as missing data in the analysis.

Data characteristics

Table 1 shows the list of variables used in the analysis and the data characteristics. In 2014, per capita cigarette consumption in the 28 EU countries for adults aged 15 years and over was the highest in Slovenia at 2098 cigarettes, followed by the Czech Republic (1720 cigarettes), Austria (1631 cigarettes), Greece (1552 cigarettes), and Romania (1501 cigarettes); those of the other EU countries were all less than 1500 cigarettes. In 2014, the average real retail price was the highest in United Kingdom at US$9.48 per pack, followed by Ireland (US$9.04). In addition, the average highest number of MPOWER measures implemented in Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom was 3, followed by Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Malta, and the Netherlands at 2; whereas in the remaining EU countries the number of measures were below 2.
Table 1

Comparison of cigarette consumption, retail prices and gross national income from 2005 to 2014 in the European Union

Countries

Per capita legal cigarette consumption of population aged over 15 (No. cigs)

Real retail price of a pack of legal cigarettes (US$)

Real GNI per capita (US$)

Consumer price index (2005 = 100)

The number of MPOWER measures at the highest level of achievement in 2014

Share of total taxes in the retail price in 2014

2005

2014

Change (2005 ~ 2014)

2005

2014

Change (2005 ~ 2014)

2005

2014

Change (2005 ~ 2014)

Austria

1688

1631

−3.38%

3.27

4.59

40.37%

38,500

41,765

8.48%

1

74.00%

Belgium

1156

966

−16.44%

4.5

5.24

16.44%

37,850

39,561

4.52%

2

75.92%

Bulgaria

2750

1282

−53.38%

0.8

1.6

100.00%

3760

5261

39.92%

2

82.65%

Croatia

1735

1330

−23.34%

1.69

2.74

62.13%

9870

10,471

6.09%

0

75.26%

Czech Republic

2183

1720

−21.21%

1.77

2.79

57.63%

12,380

15,246

23.15%

1

77.42%

Cyprus

1371

1400

2.12%

2.06

2.72

32.04%

21,490

22,597

5.15%

0

77.47%

Denmark

1472

1080

−26.63%

4.06

5.15

26.85%

49,620

52,632

6.07%

2

74.75%

Estonia

1481

1480

−0.07%

1.25

2.27

81.60%

9710

13,436

38.37%

1

77.24%

Finland

954

789

−17.30%

4.05

5.44

34.32%

40,100

40,954

2.13%

1

81.53%

France

898

682

−24.05%

5

7.07

41.40%

36,000

37,487

4.13%

1

80.3%

Germany

1175

980

−16.60%

4.49

5.23

16.48%

35,880

41,335

15.20%

1

72.9%

Greece

3016

1552

−48.54%

2.46

3.3

34.15%

22,510

18,212

−19.09%

2

79.95%

Hungary

1366

936

−31.48%

1.52

1.88

23.68%

10,430

9202

−11.77%

1

77.26%

Ireland

1364

685

−49.78%

6.01

9.04

50.42%

44,500

32,362

−27.28%

3

77.8%

Italy

1569

1147

−26.90%

3.57

4.9

37.25%

32,390

29,248

−9.70%

1

75.68%

Latvia

2089

892

−57.30%

0.81

2.02

149.38%

7360

10,293

39.85%

1

76.89%

Lithuania

1079

965

−10.57%

1.26

2.42

92.06%

7550

11,421

51.27%

1

75.76%

Luxembourg

1110

854

−23.06%

4.57

4.63

1.31%

70,340

62,685

−10.88%

1

70.24%

Malta

1661

1048

−36.91%

2.76

3.77

36.59%

14,380

19,645

36.61%

2

74.63%

Netherlands

837

659

−21.27%

3.13

5.92

89.14%

42,390

43,804

3.34%

2

73.4%

Poland

1926

1136

−41.02%

1.17

2.52

115.38%

7330

10,858

48.13%

1

80.29%

Portugal

1754

852

−51.43%

2.29

4.62

101.75%

18,550

18,342

−1.12%

1

74.51%

Romania

1604

1501

−6.42%

0.23

0.55

139.13%

3930

6190

57.51%

1

75.41%

Slovakia

1136

1381

21.57%

1.26

1.83

45.24%

11,280

14,410

27.75%

1

81.54%

Slovenia

2281

2098

−8.02%

1.54

2.47

60.39%

18,440

19,217

4.21%

1

80.41%

Spain

2212

911

−58.82%

2.79

4.09

46.59%

25,930

24,424

−5.81%

3

78.09%

Sweden

2212

666

−69.89%

4.93

6.37

29.21%

45,350

54,339

19.82%

1

68.84%

United Kingdom

843

568

−32.62%

7.87

9.48

20.46%

41,150

34,194

−16.90%

3

82.16%

Empirical specification and analysis

To calculate cigarette price elasticity, a cigarette demand structure model was constructed using cigarette consumption as the dependent variable and cigarette price, cigarette prices in Eastern Europe countries, GNI, rural population, and the highest number of MPOWER measures implemented as explanatory variables. Cigarette price elasticity was estimated with income as the threshold variable using the threshold regression model of panel data from Hansen [24].

The baseline cigarette demand structure model of the 28 EU countries is as follows:
$$ \ln {C}_{it}={\beta}_{1i}+{\beta}_2\ln {P}_{it}+{\beta}_3\ln {GNI}_{it}+{\beta}_4{Rural}_{it}+{\beta}_5{MP}_{it}+{\beta}_6\ln {NeiP}_{it}+{\varepsilon}_{it} $$
(1)

Where,

C it : the annual cigarette consumption per capita in the population aged 15 years and over in country i in year t.

P it : the cigarette price per cigarette in country i in year t.

GNI it : the per capita national income in country i in year t.

Rural it : the rural population percentage in country i in year t.

MP it : the highest number of MPOWER measures implemented in country i in year t.

NeiP it : cigarette prices per cigarette in Eastern European country i in year t.

Formula (1) is the traditional constant-elasticity log-linear demand model, but the influence of cigarette prices on cigarette consumption may not be limited to a single pattern. That is, there may also be non-linear structural relationships, such as income threshold effects on the demand for tobacco products [20]. We thus used income as the threshold variable in the threshold regression model to estimate the elasticity of cigarette prices and to simulate the effects of price fluctuations. One feature of a threshold regression model is that threshold variables are ordered so as to be a structure breakpoint of regime variation. The estimated reference points are divided into different regimes by variable value, which is greater or smaller than the threshold value.

The panel threshold regression model is often “de-meaned” first, in order to eliminate the individual effect β i [24]. If our baseline model contains three regimes of national incomes that are conditional on two threshold values, Eq. 1 can be derived as
$$ {\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}\ln {C}_{it}^{\ast }={\beta}_{21}\ln {P}_{it}^{\ast}\left( GNI\le {\gamma}_1\right)+{\beta}_{22}\ln {P}_{it}^{\ast}\left({\gamma}_1\le GNI\le {\gamma}_2\right)+{\beta}_{23}\ln {P}_{it}^{\ast}\left( GNI>{\gamma}_2\right)+\\ {}\kern3.12em {\beta}_{31}\ln {GNI}_{it}^{\ast}\left( GNI\le {\gamma}_1\right)+{\beta}_{32}\ln {GNI}_{it}^{\ast}\left({\gamma}_1\le GNI\le {\gamma}_2\right)+{\beta}_{33}\ln {GNI}_{it}^{\ast}\left( GNI>{\gamma}_2\right)\\ {}\kern2.84em +\kern0.72em {\beta}_4{Rural}_{it}^{\ast }+{\beta}_5{MP}_{it}^{\ast }+{\beta}_6\ln {NeiP}_{it}^{\ast }+{\varepsilon}_{it}^{\ast}\end{array}} $$
(2)

Where \( {\overline{C}}_i={T}^{-1}{\sum}_{t=1}^T{C}_{it} \); \( {C}_{it}^{\ast }={C}_{it}-\overline{C_i} \); \( {P}_{it}^{\ast }={P}_{it}-\overline{P_i} \); \( {GNI}_{it}^{\ast }={GNI}_{it}-{\overline{GNI}}_i \); \( {Rural}_{it}^{\ast }={Rural}_{it}-{\overline{Rural}}_i \); \( {MP}_{it}^{\ast }={MP}_{it}-{\overline{MP}}_i \); \( {NeiP}_{it}^{\ast }={NeiP}_{it}-{\overline{NeiP}}_i \); \( {\varepsilon}_{it}^{\ast }={\varepsilon}_{it}-{\overline{\varepsilon}}_i \); and γ1 and γ2 are the two threshold values that control GNI it . We use ordinary least squares (OLS) to estimate Eq. 2. The selection of threshold variables in the empirical model can be determined by economic theory or statistical testing. In the process of statistical testing, the null hypothesis (H0: β i are all the same) maintains that a traditional log-linear model is sufficient. In this article, we applied the likelihood ratio to test the nonlinear relationship. In such cases, further testing is required to determine single, double or triple thresholds. In order to avoid heteroskedasticity, the inconsistency of standard errors caused by serial correlations and heterogeneity of the residual terms, consistent correction was performed according to White (1980) [25]. Statistical software packages Gauss and Stata were used to perform the analysis.

To determine the effects of cigarette price hikes on cigarette consumption, cigarette consumption in 2015 was set as the baseline for this study. We introduced 10% increments in cigarette prices to simulate changes in future cigarette consumption based on the cigarette price elasticity estimated in this study. Changes in tobacco tax revenues were calculated based on changes in consumption due to price increases.

The number of averted smoking-attributable deaths (SADs) derived from the simulated impact of price increments on the reduction in smokers and was adjusted for the fact that smoking cessation still carries considerable risks of early death [26]. The applied mortality adjustment factors were calculated for each country surveyed, assuming that 95, 75, 70, 50 and 10% of those who ceased smoking when aged 15 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59 and at least 60 years, respectively, would remain unaffected by their previous smoking habits [27]. Data on population stratification were extracted from the Eurostat database.

Results

Regression results

Table 2 shows the test results of the threshold effect. For the observed EU countries, the test for one threshold had a value of 43.66, suggesting that price elasticities may indeed fluctuate as a result of changing income levels. The panel threshold model seems thus to be more appropriate to apply in this study than the traditional panel data model. Next, the value of the LR with two thresholds was 36.61, which allowed us to reject the null hypothesis that there was no presence of a threshold effect at the 10% significance level. Furthermore, there were two significant income threshold values in cigarette prices in the EU at US$5418 and at US$8385. As the sum of squared errors (SSE) of the double-threshold model (0.311) is lower than that of the single-threshold model (0.355), the double-threshold model seems to be more appropriate.
Table 2

Threshold model estimates

 

Dependent variable: (lnC* it)

 

Single-income threshold model

Double-income threshold model

Independent variables

 ln P* it

  Regime1(GNIitUS$5418)

−1.315 b (−0.737,-1.893)

−1.227 b(−0.667,-1.787)

  Regime2(GNIit > US$5418)

−0.638 b (−0.427,-0.849)

 

  Regime2(US$5418 < GNIitUS$8385)

 

−0.829 b (−0.628,-1.030)

  Regime3(GNIit > US$8385)

 

−0.503 b (−0.291,-0.715)

 lnGNI* it

  Regime1(GNIitUS$5418)

0.332 b (0.596,0.069)

0.282 b (0.530,0.033)

  Regime2(GNIit > US$5418)

0.596 b (0.827, 0.366)

 

  Regime2(US$5418 < GNIitUS$8385)

 

0.423 b (0.685,0.261)

  Regime3(GNIit > US$8385)

 

0.576 b (0.787,0.336)

 MP* it

−0.021 b (−0.006,-0.035)

−0.017 b (−0.003,-0.032)

 Rural* it

1.637 b (3.006,0.269)

1.616 b (2.830,0.402)

 lnNeiP* it

0.031 (0.184,-0.122)

−0.057 (0.083,-0.197)

Observations

252

252

Number of country

28

28

Sum of square error (SSE)

0.355

0.311

Test for one threshold (income threshold) γ1

43.66 a (5418)

 

Test for two thresholds (income threshold) γ2

 

36.61 a (6494,32,040)

Regime 1 countries: Bulgaria, Romania

Regime 2 countries: Latvia, Poland

Regime 3 countries: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom

P * legal cigarette price, GNI * per capita national income, Rural * rural population %, MP * the number of MPOWER measures at the highest level of achievement. Confidence intervals are shown in parentheses

aStatistically significant at 10% level

bStatistically significant at 5% level

This study thus used three income regimes with different GNI per capita in the analysis. As illustrated in Table 3, Bulgaria and Romania were assigned to the first, Latvia and Poland to the second, and the remaining 24 EU countries to the third income regime.
Table 3

Impact of cigarette price increases by 10% on cigarette consumption, tax revenue, and reduction in smoking-attributable deaths

Countries

Average real price per pack in 2015 (US$)

Increase in price due to price scenarios increase 10% (US$)

Estimated cigarette price elasticities

Change in cigarette consumption (%)

Change in cigarette consumption (million packs)

Change in cigarette tax revenue (%)

Change in cigarette tax revenue (million US$)

Reduction in no. of smokers due to price increases

Reduction in no. of SADsb

Regime1(GNIitUS$5418)

 Bulgaria, Romania

1.15

0.115

−1.227

−12.27

−230.15

−1.41

−14.4

588,614

251,860

Regime2 (US$5418 < GNIitUS$8385)

 Latvia, Poland

2.32

0.232

−0.829

−8.29

−206.84

3.15

139.5

489,546

210,061

Regime3 (GNIit > US$8385)

 EU24 countries (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom)

4.63

0.463

−0.503

−5.03

−1019.48

7.03

6523

3,123,560

1,419,959

All EU28 countries

4.15

0.415

−0.587

−5.87

−1310.09

6.76

6644

4,201,720

1,879,880

SADs smoking-attributable death

aThe reduction in the number of smokers equals the reduction in cigarette consumption as a result of price increases multiplied by the number of adult smokers

bThe number of SADs averted was calculated according to Goodchild et al. [6]: Reduction in SADs = Reduction in no. of smokers multiplied by the corresponding mortality adjustment factor

Elasticity estimates

Our model showed differences in cigarette price elasticity figures of each income threshold (Table 2). When GNI per capita was lower than US$5414 (Regime 1), cigarette price elasticity was the highest at −1.227 and income elasticity the lowest at 0.282. When GNI per capita was between US$5414 and US$8385 (Regime 2), cigarette price elasticity reached −0.829 and income elasticity 0.423. When GNI per capita was higher than US$8385 (Regime 3), cigarette price elasticity was the lowest at −0.503 and income elasticity the highest at 0.576. In addition, among the 28 EU countries cigarette prices in Eastern European countries (\( {NeiP}_{it}^{\ast } \)) had a negative impact on cigarette consumption (−0.057), indicating that lower cigarette prices in Eastern European countries led to higher domestic consumption.

The number of MPOWER measures implemented at the highest level of achievement had a negative and statistically significant impact on cigarette consumption. Moreover, living in rural areas had a positive and statistically significant impact on cigarette consumption.

Effect of cigarette prices on cigarette consumption, tobacco tax revenue, and smoking-related deaths

Results of the administered price simulation showed that increases in cigarette prices (10%) would reduce cigarette consumption the most in Bulgaria and Romania (per pack average price increase US$0.115; consumption reduced: 12.27%), followed by Latvia, and Poland (per pack average price increase US$0.232; consumption reduced:8.29%). The largest group of EU countries (in the following referred to as EU 24) had a smaller reduction in cigarette consumption (consumption reduced: 5.03%) (Table 3).

Furthermore, the administered price simulation exhibited different effects on tax revenues among the three income groups. Bulgaria and Romania had a decrease in tax revenues (−1.41%), whereas the EU24 countries had the highest average increase in tax revenues (7.03%). Latvia and Poland, on the other hand, showed the lowest average increase in tax revenues (3.15%) among all EU countries.

The simulated tax increase showed a significant impact on the number of averted smoking-attributable deaths (SADs) in all EU countries, but low-income countries were much more affected by the policy measure than the richer EU24 countries. According to the simulation, Bulgaria and Romania would avert over 251,860 deaths, followed by Latvia and Poland with 210,061 people, whereas the number of averted SADs would reach about 1.4 million in the EU24 zone.

Discussion

According to the results of this study, the price elasticity of cigarette demand in the 28 countries comprising the EU ranged from −0.503 to −1.227. Countries with a GNI per capita lower than US$5418 had the highest cigarette price elasticity (−1.227). Countries with a GNI per capita higher than US$5418 had lower cigarette price elasticities. These findings were similar to International Agency for Research on Cancer [28], who showed that low- and middle-income countries had a higher price elasticity. The results of this study thus further emphasise the importance of using economic measures as an intervention tool, especially in countries such as Bulgaria, and Romania, to reduce smoking.

In addition, this study estimated that income elasticities of cigarette demand ranged from 0.282 to 0.576. Previously reported estimates ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 [4]. Despite differences in the size of the observed effect, elasticity figures suggest that income growth may have promoted cigarette consumption in the observed EU countries. That is, the effects of price increases on consumption might be offset by income growth in countries with a GNI per capita above US$8385, where estimated cigarette price elasticity was lower than income elasticity. Thus, almost all EU countries would have to increase their cigarette prices substantially to reduce the increase in cigarette consumption that might be caused by income growth offset effects.

This study found that an average price increase of 10% throughout the EU would lead to an average increase in revenues by about 6.76%, which is consistent with previously reported results [29]. Moreover, results of this study showed that the average tobacco taxation benefit of all EU countries significantly increased by 6644 million US$ as a result of rising cigarette prices. In the future, increased cigarette prices in all EU countries are likely to reduce further the demand for cigarettes, and the appreciable increase in tobacco taxation revenues could be spent on the prevention and control of cigarette-related diseases.

Additionally, this study revealed a negative relationship between the number of MPOWER measures at the highest level of achievement and cigarette consumption, which implies that t the implementation of MPOWER measures can reduce cigarette consumption in the 28 EU countries. In most countries, however, the number of MPOWER measures at the highest level of achievement was below 2, That is, the number of implemented MPOWER tobacco control policies among EU countries was rather small. Therefore, efforts have to be made to implement far more MPOWER tobacco control policies as to achieve greater effects in reducing cigarette consumption as a whole.

This study showed that price increases in Bulgaria, and Romania had the greatest effects on reducing cigarette consumption among all EU countries, while experiencing a comparatively high prevalence of smoking [30]. In spite of gradual increases in tobacco taxes as to control tobacco consumption in recent years, cigarette prices in Bulgaria, and Romania have still remained comparatively low [2, 31]. If these two countries continued to increase cigarette prices and the number of MPOWER tobacco control policies, current achievements could be significantly enhanced and funding for prevention and control programmes substantially be improved by larger taxation revenues. Transnational information was analysed in this study. However, the integrated analysis of transnational information may lead to incorrect inferences because different countries have different cigarette consumption structures. We thus suggest that all countries establish a cigarette consumption database and market-monitoring mechanism to undertake long-range tracking and analysis.

Illicit trade of tobacco products has not been included in the study, as reliable data could not be obtained for all countries. Moreover, data on cigarette consumption analysed in this study refer to factory-made (FM) cigarettes.Roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco products have become popular in the EU in recent years and may influence consumption behaviour. Further research on price effects may thus address the issue of illicit trade and RYO cigarette use.

Conclusion

This study estimated that price elasticities of cigarette demand ranged from −0.503 to −1.227. These figures were negative, indicating that cigarette consumption or demand in 28 EU countries were inelastic during the study period. It is recommended that the 28 EU countries should levy a higher tobacco tax to increase cigarette prices, thus reducing cigarette consumption. The subsequent increase in tobacco tax revenues would be instrumental in covering expenditures related to tobacco prevention and control programs.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank the the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan for their support in the conduct of this study. We also thank all those who were involved in this study for their contribution and commitment throughout the study.

Funding

This study was funded by a grant through the the Ministry of Science and Technology (Grant number: NSC 103–2410-H-022-011-).

Availability of data and materials

Data supporting the results reported in the article can be obtained from the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

CYY and JML performed the calculations and analyses reported in the text. JML and LMH reviewed the literature for relevant data and documentation. JML and CYY drafted the manuscript which was edited and critically revised by CYY, CS and CJH. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. We received permission to use the data for this study from Euromonitor International.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of International Trade, Overseas Chinese University
(2)
Department of Shipping and Transportation Management, National Kaohsiung Marine University
(3)
Department of Marine Leisure Management, National Kaohsiung Marine University
(4)
Department of Finance, National Changhua University of Education

References

  1. European Commission. Attitudes of Europeans towards tobacco and electronic cigarette. Eurobarometer: Special Report, 458, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2146. Accessed 24 July 2017.
  2. James Reilly, Minister of Health intervention, ENVI public hearing on the Tobacco Products Directive, 25 February 2013.Google Scholar
  3. Levy DL, Ellis JA, Mays D, Huang AT. Smoking-related deaths averted due to three years of policy progress. Bull World Health Organ. 2013;91(7):509–18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Nguyen L, Rosenqvist G, Pekurinen M. Demand for tobacco in Europe. An econometric analysis of 11 countries for the PPACTE Project. National Institute for Health and Welfare: Helsinki; 2012.Google Scholar
  5. Ahmad S, Franz GA. Raising taxes to reduce smoking prevalence in the US:A simulation of the anticipated health and economic impacts. Public Health. 2008;122(1):3–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Goodchild M, Perucic AM, Nargis N. Modelling the impact of increasing tobacco taxes on public health and finance. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:250–257.Google Scholar
  7. World Health Organisation. WHO technical manual on tobacco tax administration, 2010. http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/tax_administration/en/. Accessed 2 Feb 2017.
  8. Chapman S, Richardson J. Tobacco excise and declining tobacco consumption: the case of Papua New Guinea. Am J Public Health. 1990;80(5):537–40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu TW, Mao Z. Effects of cigarette tax on cigarette consumption and the Chinese economy. Tob Control. 2002;11(2):105–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallet CA, List JA. Cigarette demand: a meta-analysis of elasticities. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):821–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Shohaimi S, Luben R, Wareham N, Day N, Bingham S, Welch A, Oakes S, Khaw KT. Residential area deprivation predicts smoking habit independently of individual educational level and occupational social class. A cross sectional study in the Norfolk cohort of the European Investigation into Cancer (EPIC-Norfolk). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(4):270–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Ross CE. Walking, exercising, and smoking: does neighborhood matter? Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(2):265–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Idris BI, Giskes K, Borrell C, Benach J, Costa G, Federico B, Helakorpi S, Helmert U, Lahelma E, Moussa KM, Ostergren PO, Prättälä R, Rasmussen NK, Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE. Higher smoking prevalence in urban compared to non-urban areas: time trends in six European countries. Health Place. 2007;13(3):702–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Townsend JL, Roderick P, Cooper J. Cigarette smoking by socioeconomic group, sex, and age: effects of price, income, and health publicity. BMJ. 1994;309(6959):923–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Response to increases in cigarette prices by race/ethnicity, income, and age groups--United States, 1976-1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1998;47(29):605–9.Google Scholar
  16. Beyond Smoking Kills. Protecting Children, Reducing Inequalities. London: ASH, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2009–2015. Geneva; WHO, 2009–2016.Google Scholar
  18. Johnston N, Kegö W, Wenngren C. Cigarette smuggling: Poland to Sweden. Institute for Security and Development Policy: Stockholm; 2016.Google Scholar
  19. Chen SH, Lee JM, Liu HH, Wang HC, Ye CY. The cross-effects of cigarette and betel nut consumption in Taiwan: have tax increases made a difference? Health Policy Plan. 2011;26(3):266–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang BN, Yang CW. Demand for cigarettes revisited: an application of the threshold regression model. Agric Econ. 2006;34(1):81–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Euromonitor International (database online). Tobacco: global. Passport database. Euromonitor. London: Euromonitor; 2014. http://www.euromonitor.com/tobacco Google Scholar
  22. World Bank. World Development Indicators (WDI). Washington, DC: World Bank; 2014.Google Scholar
  23. United Nations. World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision. New York: United Nations Population Division; 2014.Google Scholar
  24. Hansen BE. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference. J Econom. 1999;93(2):345–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. White H. A heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econom. 1980;48(4):817–38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Ranson K, Jha P, Chaloupka FJ, Nguyen SN. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of price and other tobacco control policies. In: Jha P, Chaloupka FJ, editors. Tobacco control in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 427–47.Google Scholar
  27. Goodchild M, Perucic AM, Nargis N. Modelling the impact of raising tobacco taxes on public health and finance. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(4):250–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention: tobacco control. Volume 14. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2011.Google Scholar
  29. Waters H, Sáenz de Miera B, Ross H, Reynales Shigematsu LM. The economics of tobacco and tobacco taxation in Mexico. Paris: International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease; 2010.Google Scholar
  30. European Commission. Survey on tobacco - analytical report. Flash Eurobarometer No 253, 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_253_en.pdf. (Accessed 2 Feb 2017).
  31. Jassem J, Przewoźniak K, Zatoński W. Tobacco control in Poland—successes and challenges. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2014;3(5):280–5.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017