CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83Global Public Health Policies and EpidemiologySmoking Behavior and CessationPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies

Tobacco and transition: an overview of industry investments, impact and influence in the former Soviet Union: Table 6

Open access
Gilmore, A B, McKee, M·2004·Tobacco Control
DOI 10.1136/tc.2002.002667PMC PMC1747859
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives:To quantify the contribution the tobacco industry has made to foreign direct investment (FDI) in the former Soviet Union (FSU) as an indicator of its political and economic leverage; to explore the impact this has had on production capacity and tobacco control in the region. Design:Data on industry investment and its impact on cigarette production capacity were collated from industry journals, reports, and websites. Data on total FDI were obtained from the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Results:By the end of 2000, transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) had invested over US$2.7 billion in 10 countries of the FSU. Tobacco money as a proportion of FDI varies from 1% to over 30% in Uzbekistan. Cigarette production capacity in the factories receiving investments tripled from 146 to 416 billion cigarettes per annum and the TTCs’ market share has increased from nothing to between 50–100% in the markets in which they invested. Findings suggest that the effectiveness of national tobacco control measures corresponds broadly to the nature of the political and economic transition in each country and the size of industry investment, which is determined in part by the political context. Thus more effective measures tend to be seen in democratic states with smaller or no industry investments while the least effective measures are seen in highly centralised, one party states with high levels of industry investment or those with limited governmental capacity. Conclusions:The entry of the TTCs at a time of major political and economic change left the FSU particularly vulnerable to industry influence. This influence was enhanced by the industry’s significant contribution to FDI, their ability to take over existing state monopolies in all but the largest countries, and the lack of democratic opposition.

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 · 10.1136/tc.2002.002667

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Tobacco companies have historically maintained low prices in Ukraine by undercutting each other, lobbying against tobacco tax increases, and absorbing small tax increases rather than passing them on to consumers.

    “Tobacco companies have historically maintained low prices in Ukraine by undercutting each other to keep prices low, lobbying against legislation increasing tobacco taxes, and absorbing small tax increases rather than passing them on to consumers.13–15”

    From Seven-year tobacco tax plan in Ukraine: a case study of the actors, tactics and factors motivating policy passage (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says tobacco companies competed for market share in Russia and Ukraine, and the Tobacco control section describes industry lobbying that weakened a Ukrainian advertising ban. Neither passage says companies undercut one another on price, lobbied against tobacco-tax increases in Ukraine, or absorbed tax increases instead of passing them on to consumers. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Despite tax increases, Ukraine ranks among the bottom five countries for cigarette prices in Europe.

    “Despite these increases, Ukraine ranks among the bottom five countries for cigarette prices in Europe.13–16”

    From Seven-year tobacco tax plan in Ukraine: a case study of the actors, tactics and factors motivating policy passage (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Tobacco control passage discusses substantial excise-tax increases in the Baltic states, not Ukraine. Searches for Ukraine’s cigarette prices and a European price ranking found no passage stating that Ukraine was among the five cheapest countries, despite tax increases. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Taylor A, Chaloupka FJ, Guindon E, et al. The impact of trade liberalisation on tobacco consumption. In: Jha P, Chaloupka F, eds. Tobacco control in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  2. Connolly GN. Tobacco, trade and eastern Europe. In: Slama K, ed. Tobacco and health. New York: Plenum Press, 1995.
  3. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). World Investment Report 2001, Promoting Linkages. Geneva: United Nations, 2001.
  4. Volodina W, Alexeyev I. Meeting more than the market's demand. Tobacco Journal International 2001;3:27-35.
  5. Volodina S. Ukraine: Mastering the crisis. Tobacco Journal International 2000;4:64-70.
  6. Anon. Filter cigarettes make headway on Ukraine's turbulent market. World Tobacco for Russia and Eastern Europe 2000;1:3-7.
  7. Anon. Tobacco traveller: Latvia. Tobacco Journal International 1994;3:66.
  8. Anon. Tobacco traveller: Estonia. Tobacco Journal International 1994;3:64.
  9. Anon. Kova plant closed. Tobacco Journal International 1996;4:58.
  10. Glogan T. King Philip of Lithuania. Tobacco Journal International 2000;1:40.
  11. Anon. Tobacco traveller: Uzbekistan. Tobacco Journal International 1996;4:63.
  12. Khan MA. New tobacco factory opened in Kazakhstan. Tobacco Journal International 2000;4:71-2.
  13. Anon. Armenia: Canadian involvement. Tobacco Journal International 1997;4:4.
  14. Wright R. Cigarettes help build impoverished Armenia. The Russia Journal April 6-12, 2001. http://www.Russiajournal.com/weekly/pdfs/ 106_16.pdf (last accessed 4 April 2002).
  15. Anon. Azerbaijan: RJR in Joint venture. Tobacco Journal International 1996;4:4.
  16. Anon. Tobacco Traveller: Belorussia. Tobacco Journal International 1996;4:61.
  17. Anon. Moldova: New bids considered. Tobacco Journal International 1997;2:6.
  18. Anon. Moldova Joint Venture. Tobacco Journal International 1996;5:7.
  19. Anon. Tobacco Traveller: Tajikistan. Tobacco Journal International 1996;6:82.
  20. Crescenti MG. Russia Getting back on its feet. Tobacco Journal International 1999;6:54-6.
  21. Cooper R. Smoking in the Soviet Union. BMJ 1982;285:549-51.
  22. Prokhorov A. Getting on Smokin' Route 66: tobacco promotion via Russian mass media. Tobacco Control 1997;6:145-6.
  23. Hurt RD. Smoking in Russia: what do Stalin and western tobacco companies have in common? Mayo Clin Proc 1995;70:1007-11.
  24. McKee M, Bobak M, Rose R, et al. Patterns of smoking in Russia. Tobacco Control 1998;7:22-26.
  25. Krasovsky K. Abusive international marketing and promotion tactics by Philip Morris and RJR Nabisco in Ukraine. In: INFACT, Global aggression, the case for world standards and bold US action challenging Phillip Morris an RJR Nabisco. New York: Apex Press, 1998.
  26. WHO Regional Office for Europe. The European Report on Tobacco Control Policy. Review of implementation of the Third Action Plan for a Tobacco-free Europe 1997-2001. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, 2002.
  27. Pudule I, Grinberga D, Kadziauskiene K, et al. Patterns of smoking in the Baltic Republics. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1999;53:277-83.
  28. Anon. Lithuania health warnings. Tobacco Journal International 1996;5:7.
  29. Glogan T. Contraband impairs Estonian market. Tobacco Journal International 1999;5:69.
  30. Glogan T. Latvia suffers under barrage of contraband. Tobacco Journal International 1999;6:95-6.
  31. Forey B, Hamling J, Lee P, et al. International smoking statistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
  32. Gilmore A, McKee M, Telishevska M, et al. Smoking in Ukraine: epidemiology and determinants. Prev Med 2001;33:453-61.
  33. Pomerleau J, Gilmore A, McKee M, et al. Determinants of smoking in eight countries of the former Soviet Union: results from the Living Conditions, Lifestyles and Health Study. (in press).
  34. Gilmore A, McKee M, Rose R. Smoking in Belarus: evidence from a household survey. Eur J Epidemiol 2001;17:245-53.
  35. Prokhorov AV, Alexandrov AA. Tobacco smoking in Moscow school students. Br J Addict 1992;87:1469-76.
  36. Alexandrov AA, Alexandrova V, Ivanova EI. Prevalence of smoking among Moscow school children and approaches to prevention. In: Lu R, Mackay J, Niu S, Peto R, eds. Tobacco: the growing epidemic. Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Tobacco or Health, 24-28 August 1997, Beijing, China. London: Springer-Verlag, 266-8.
  37. Anon. Statistics: production of cigarettes. Tobacco Journal International 1997;6:87-90.
  38. Parrott B. Perspectives on postcommunist democratisation. In: Dawisha K, Parrott B, eds. Conflict, cleavage and change in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 86 Uzbekistan: who's in charge now? Tobacco Control 2000;9:359-6.
  39. Anon. Health and dictatorship: effects of repression in Turkmenistan. Lancet 2003;361:69-70.
  40. Anon. A tactical market. Interview with Denis Gourinovich, corporate relations manager at BAT in Belarus. Tobacco Journal International 12 February 2003. http://www.tobaccojournal.com/ show_artikel.php3?id = 2971 (last accessed 6 June 2003).
  41. Horne B. Russia strives to create more attractive climate for foreign investment. Tobacco Journal International 1995;6:12-18.
  42. Anon. Tobacco Traveller: Russia update. Tobacco Journal International 2000;6:82-5.
  43. Crescenti MG. A market for the brave. Tobacco Journal International 1997;6:14-21.
  44. Anon. Russia, BAT investment. Tobacco Journal International 1997;4:98.
  45. Anon. 1998 revisited. Tobacco Journal International 1999;Yearbook:4-8.
  46. Anon. Rothmans' new plant. Tobacco Journal International 1997;6:8.
  47. Volodina S. Showtime for tobacco. Tobacco Journal International 2000;5:90-2.
  48. Anon. 1999 revisited. Tobacco Journal International 2000;Yearbook:6. 100 Anon. Major investments indicate continuing faith in local production. World Tobacco for Russia and Eastern Europe 1998;II:39-40. 101
  49. Crescenti MG. Confidence in a Turbulent market. Tobacco Journal International 2000;1:26-7. 102
  50. Anon. Four multinationals, J Reynolds, Philip Morris, BAT and Reemtsma have purchased stakes in Ukrainian factories. Tobacco Reporter 1996;July:45-48. 105 Anon. Foreign involvement in the tobacco industries of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. (status August 1994). Tobacco Journal International 1994;5:97-104 (insert). 106
  51. Anon. Four multinationals, RJ Reynolds, Philip Moris, BAT and Reemtsma, have purchased stakes in Ukrainian factories. Tobacco Reporter 1996;July:45-8. 107 Anon. Tobacco Journal International 1996;5:7. 108
  52. Phillip Morris International. (http://www.pmintl.com/about_us/ history.html) (last accessed 7 March 2001). 109 Anon. 1996 revisited (Ukraine). Tobacco Journal International 1997;Yearbook:8. 110
  53. Horne B. Opposition to reform hinders economic growth in Ukraine. Tobacco Journal International 1995;6:20-2. 111
  54. Shchur V. Foreign investment igniting tobacco market. Kyiv Post 23 May 2002 (http://www.kpnews.com/displaypr.php?arid = 11122) (last accessed 12 September 2002). 113 Anon. Late News: Lithuania new factory. Tobacco Journal International 1994;5:112. 114
  55. Glogan T. Baltic Tobacco industries struggle to develop. Tobacco Journal International 1995;4:54-8. 115 Anon. Tobacco Traveller: Kazakhstan. Tobacco Journal International 1996;6:81. 116 Khan MA. New tobacco factory opened in Kazakhstan. Tobacco Journal International 2000;4:71-2. 117
  56. Horne B. Involvement in Eastern Europe and the FSU. Tobacco Journal International 1994;5:88-96. 118
  57. Horne B. BAT forging ahead with factory in Samarkand. Tobacco Journal International 1997;1:20-2. 119 Anon Kyrygzstan. Tobacco Journal International 2001;Yearbook:8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilmore, A. B., & McKee, M.
Affiliations
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Gilmore, A B
ORCID
Venue
Tobacco Control
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-06
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
136-142
ISSN
  • 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3318
DOI
10.1136/tc.2002.002667
PMC
PMC1747859
OpenAlex
W2011963572
Cited by
83
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tobacco Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA091021, R01 CA91021)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Political Influence and Corporate Strategies
Keywords
tobacco industry, foreign direct investment, transnational tobacco companies, former Soviet Union, tobacco control, political transition, industry influence, state monopoly, market share
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Advertising, Humans, International Cooperation, Investments, Organizational Objectives, Commonwealth of Independent States, Tobacco Industry, Marketing

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