Cited by 14Smoking Behavior and CessationGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyEconomic and Fiscal Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Health Gains, Financial Risk Protection Benefits, and Distributional Impact of Increased Tobacco Taxes in Armenia

Open access

Abstract

—The majority of Armenian adult males smoke, yet tobacco taxes in Armenia are among the lowest in Europe and Central Asia. Increasing taxes on tobacco is one of the most cost-effective public health interventions, but many opponents often cite regressivity as an argument against tobacco taxation. We use a mixed-methods approach to study the potential regressivity of tobacco taxation and the extent to which the regressivity argument hindered increases in tobacco taxation in Armenia. First, we pursued an extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) to assess the health, financial, and distributional consequences (by consumption quintile) of increases in the excise tax on cigarettes in Armenia. We simulated a hypothetical price hike leading to a tax rate of about 75% of the retail price of cigarettes, which would be fully passed on to consumers. Second, we conducted a series of stakeholder interviews to examine the importance of the regressivity argument and identify the factors that allowed tobacco tax increases to be adopted as public policy in Armenia. We show that increased excise taxes would bring large health and financial benefits to Armenian households. Half of tobacco-related premature deaths and 27% of associated poverty cases averted would be concentrated among the bottom 40% of the population. Though regressivity was raised as a concern at the initial stages of the policy adoption process, our qualitative stakeholder analysis indicates that the recent accession to the Eurasian Economic Union and the fiscal constraints faced by the government created a window of opportunity for tobacco taxation to be placed on the policy agenda and adopted as government policy, and the ECEA findings were an important input into the process.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23288604.2017.1413494

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several extended cost-effectiveness analyses have established that the overall impact of increased tobacco taxes is progressive when accounting for outcomes of health benefits and financial risk protection.

    “Several extended cost-effectiveness analyses have established this: the overall impact of increased tobacco taxes is progressive when accounting for outcomes of health benefits and financial risk protection.223–229”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. U.S. National Cancer Institute, 2016, World Health Organization. The economics of tobacco and tobacco control
  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2011, IARC handbooks of cancer prevention, tobacco control: Vol. 14. Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control
  3. Chaloupka FJ, 2000, Tobacco control in developing countries
  4. Jha P, 1999, Curbing the epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control
  5. 10.1056/NEJMra1308383 · DOI · Paper page
  6. World Health Organization, 2010, WHO technical manual on tobacco tax administration
  7. 10.1136/tc.5.3.220 · DOI
  8. Balbach ED, 2006, J Epidemiol Community Health, 60, ii27−ii32
  9. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050098 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.2105/AJPH.94.2.225 · DOI
  11. Lavado R, 2017, Marquez PV, Moreno-Dodson B, editors. Tobacco tax reform: at the crossroad of health and development
  12. 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004410 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/hec.3019 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/s40273-016-0414-z · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.10.020 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.7189/jogh.07.020701 · DOI
  17. 10.2307/1914221 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/hec.4730040102 · DOI
  19. Adioetomo SM, 2005, Hendratno. Cigarette consumption, taxation, and household income: Indonesia case study, 10.1596/13737 · DOI
  20. 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1056/NEJMsa0707719 · DOI
  22. Richardson E, 2013, Health Syst Transit, 15, 1
  23. 10.2307/3350086 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/1475-6773.00142 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/eurpub/cki024 · DOI
  26. World Bank, National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia, 2015, Social snapshot and poverty in Armenia: based on the results of the 2014 Integrated Living Conditions Survey of Households
  27. 10.1093/heapol/czs049 · DOI
  28. Kaufman RR, 2004, editors. Crucial needs, weak incentives: social sector reform, democratization, and globalization in Latin America, 10.56021/9780801880490 · DOI
  29. Roberts MJ, Hsiao W, Berman P, Reich MR. Getting health reform right: a guide to improving performance and equity. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2008. · DOI
  30. International Monetary Fund. Republic of Armenia Third review under the extended arrangement. IMF Country Report No. 16/246. Washington (DC): International Monetary Fund, 2016 [accessed 2016 Dec 16]. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2016/12/31/Republic-of-Armenia-Third-Review-Under-the-Extended-Arrangement-and-Request-for-Waiver-and-44109. · DOI
  31. Stepanyan A, 2015, The spillover effects of Russia's economic slowdown on neighboring countries
  32. Ayvazyan K, 2015, Spillovers from global and regional shocks to Armenia, 10.5089/9781513590462.001 · DOI
  33. 10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.984 · DOI
  34. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053340 · DOI
  35. 10.17310/ntj.2009.4.05 · DOI
  36. 10.1177/1091142112442742 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/S0167-7187(99)00057-0 · DOI
  38. 10.1596/25969 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Postolovska, I., Lavado, R., Tarr, G., & Verguet, S.
Affiliations
  • World Bank (US)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Verguet, Stéphane
Venue
Health Systems & Reform
Published
2017-12-18
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
30-41
ISSN
  • 2328-8604 (ISSN-L)
  • 2328-8620
OpenAlex
W2779499249
Cited by
14
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Health Systems & Reform (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Fiscal Studies
Keywords
tobacco taxation, cigarette excise tax, regressivity, health gains, financial protection, distributional effects, poverty, tobacco control, policy adoption, Armenia, fiscal constraints

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review