Jidong Huang1, Rong Zheng2, Frank J Chaloupka3, Geoffrey T Fong4, Yuan Jiang5. 1. Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. School of International Trade and Economics, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China. 3. Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA WHO Collaborating Centre on the Economics of Tobacco and Tobacco Control. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 5. Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the impact of tobacco tax and price policies in China. In addition, very little is known about the differential responses to tax and price increases based on socioeconomic status in China. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the conditional cigarette consumption price elasticity among adult urban smokers in China and to examine the differential responses to cigarette price increases among groups with different income and/or educational levels. METHODS: Multivariate analyses employing the general estimating equations method were conducted using the first three waves of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) China Survey. Analyses based on subsample by education and income were conducted. FINDINGS: Conditional cigarette demand price elasticity ranges from -0.12 to -0.14. No differential responses to cigarette price increase were found across education levels. The price elasticity estimates do not differ between high-income smokers and medium-income smokers. Cigarette consumption among low-income smokers did not decrease after a price increase, at least among those who continued to smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to other low-income and middle-income countries, cigarette consumption among Chinese adult smokers is not very sensitive to changes in cigarette prices. The total impact of cigarette price increase would be larger if its impact on smoking initiation and cessation, as well as the price-reducing behaviours such as brand switching and trading down, were taken into account. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the impact of tobacco tax and price policies in China. In addition, very little is known about the differential responses to tax and price increases based on socioeconomic status in China. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the conditional cigarette consumption price elasticity among adult urban smokers in China and to examine the differential responses to cigarette price increases among groups with different income and/or educational levels. METHODS: Multivariate analyses employing the general estimating equations method were conducted using the first three waves of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) China Survey. Analyses based on subsample by education and income were conducted. FINDINGS: Conditional cigarette demand price elasticity ranges from -0.12 to -0.14. No differential responses to cigarette price increase were found across education levels. The price elasticity estimates do not differ between high-income smokers and medium-income smokers. Cigarette consumption among low-income smokers did not decrease after a price increase, at least among those who continued to smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to other low-income and middle-income countries, cigarette consumption among Chinese adult smokers is not very sensitive to changes in cigarette prices. The total impact of cigarette price increase would be larger if its impact on smoking initiation and cessation, as well as the price-reducing behaviours such as brand switching and trading down, were taken into account. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Changbao Wu; Mary E Thompson; Geoffrey T Fong; Qiang Li; Yuan Jiang; Yan Yang; Guoze Feng Journal: Tob Control Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Tingzhong Yang; Sihui Peng; Lingwei Yu; Shuhan Jiang; William B Stroub; Randall R Cottrell; Ian R H Rockett Journal: Tob Induc Dis Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 2.600
Authors: Clara K Chow; Daniel J Corsi; Anna B Gilmore; Annamarie Kruger; Ehimario Igumbor; Jephat Chifamba; Wang Yang; Li Wei; Romaina Iqbal; Prem Mony; Rajeev Gupta; Krishnapillai Vijayakumar; V Mohan; Rajesh Kumar; Omar Rahman; Khalid Yusoff; Noorhassim Ismail; Katarzyna Zatonska; Yuksel Altuntas; Annika Rosengren; Ahmad Bahonar; AfzalHussein Yusufali; Gilles Dagenais; Scott Lear; Rafael Diaz; Alvaro Avezum; Patricio Lopez-Jaramillo; Fernando Lanas; Sumathy Rangarajan; Koon Teo; Martin McKee; Salim Yusuf Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Cloé Geboers; Ce Shang; Gera E Nagelhout; Hein de Vries; Bas van den Putte; Geoffrey T Fong; Math J J M Candel; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 4.244