IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v105y2021ics0306919221001469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Avoidance behaviors circumventing the sugar-sweetened beverages tax

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Qi
  • McCluskey, Jill J.
  • Gallardo, R. Karina
  • Brady, Michael P.

Abstract

Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and other types of “sin taxes” are usually introduced at the local level and on the supply side; the efficacy of such taxes is challenged by tax avoidance behavior. In this study, we evaluate the impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in Seattle, WA; Boulder, CO; Cook County, IL (Chicago); Philadelphia, PA, and two cities in the San Francisco Bay Area in California (Berkeley and Oakland). We use grocery scanner data relying on a series of difference-in-difference designs. Results show that each cent per ounce of taxes causes the price of the taxed beverages to increase in a range from 0.47 to 0.98 cents/ounce, and the sales quantity of taxed beverages to decrease in a range of 5.1–14.4%. But the efficacy of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax is undermined by two avoidance behaviors: (1) cross-border shopping avoidance, where people shop outside of the taxed area; (2) substitution avoidance, in which people switch from taxed to tax-exempt beverages that are just as high in sugar. The results from this study provide evidence that sugar-sweetened beverage taxes can be effective. However, to enhance the effectiveness of the taxes, policy makers should consider tax avoidance when developing future similar policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Qi & McCluskey, Jill J. & Gallardo, R. Karina & Brady, Michael P., 2021. "Avoidance behaviors circumventing the sugar-sweetened beverages tax," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0306919221001469
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919221001469
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102166?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jakina Debnam, 2017. "Selection Effects and Heterogeneous Demand Responses to the Berkeley Soda Tax Vote," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1172-1187.
    2. Matthew Harding & Ephraim Leibtag & Michael F. Lovenheim, 2012. "The Heterogeneous Geographic and Socioeconomic Incidence of Cigarette Taxes: Evidence from Nielsen Homescan Data," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 169-198, November.
    3. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(3), pages 1557-1626.
    4. Lovenheim, Michael F., 2008. "How Far to the Border?: The Extent and Impact of Cross-Border Casual Cigarette Smuggling," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 61(1), pages 7-33, March.
    5. de Chaisemartin, Clement & D'Haultfoeuille, Xavier, 2014. "Fuzzy Changes-in Changes," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 184, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    6. Fabrice Etilé & Sébastien Lecocq & Christine Boizot-Szantai, 2021. "Market heterogeneity and the distributional incidence of soft-drink taxes: evidence from France [Regressive sin taxes, with an application to the optimal soda tax]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 915-939.
    7. Ying Bai & Ruixue Jia, 2016. "Elite Recruitment and Political Stability: The Impact of the Abolition of China's Civil Service Exam," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 677-733, March.
    8. David Merriman, 2010. "The Micro-geography of Tax Avoidance: Evidence from Littered Cigarette Packs in Chicago," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 61-84, May.
    9. John Cawley & David E. Frisvold, 2017. "The Pass‐Through of Taxes on Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages to Retail Prices: The Case of Berkeley, California," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 303-326, March.
    10. Asplund, Marcus & Friberg, Richard & Wilander, Fredrik, 2007. "Demand and distance: Evidence on cross-border shopping," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1-2), pages 141-157, February.
    11. Salgado, Juan Carlos & Ng, Shu Wen, 2019. "Understanding heterogeneity in price changes and firm responses to a national unhealthy food tax in Mexico," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Julie S. Downs & George Loewenstein & Jessica Wisdom, 2009. "Strategies for Promoting Healthier Food Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 159-164, May.
    13. C de Chaisemartin & X D’HaultfŒuille, 2018. "Fuzzy Differences-in-Differences," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 999-1028.
    14. DeCicca, Philip & Kenkel, Donald & Liu, Feng, 2013. "Excise tax avoidance: The case of state cigarette taxes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1130-1141.
    15. Wang, Jin, 2013. "The economic impact of Special Economic Zones: Evidence from Chinese municipalities," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 133-147.
    16. Bíró, Anikó, 2015. "Did the junk food tax make the Hungarians eat healthier?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 107-115.
    17. Lynn D Silver & Shu Wen Ng & Suzanne Ryan-Ibarra & Lindsey Smith Taillie & Marta Induni & Donna R Miles & Jennifer M Poti & Barry M Popkin, 2017. "Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Fabrice Etilé & Sebastien Lecocq & Christine Boizot-Szantai, 2019. "Market Heterogeneity and the Distributional Incidence of Soft-drink Taxes: Evidence from France," PSE Working Papers hal-02084147, HAL.
    19. Chiou Lesley & Muehlegger Erich, 2008. "Crossing the Line: Direct Estimation of Cross-Border Cigarette Sales and the Effect on Tax Revenue," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-41, December.
    20. Christian Rojas & Emily Wang, 2021. "Do Taxes On Soda And Sugary Drinks Work? Scanner Data Evidence From Berkeley And Washington State," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(1), pages 95-118, January.
    21. Cawley, John & Meyerhoefer, Chad, 2012. "The medical care costs of obesity: An instrumental variables approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 219-230.
    22. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Zhen, Chen & Bilger, Marcel & Nonnemaker, James & Farooqui, Assad M. & Todd, Jessica E., 2013. "Implications of a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax when substitutions to non-beverage items are considered," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 219-239.
    23. Falbe, J. & Thompson, H.R. & Becker, C.M. & Rojas, N. & McCulloch, C.E. & Madsen, K.A., 2016. "Impact of the Berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(10), pages 1865-1871.
    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. Cawley, John & Frisvold, David, 2023. "Review: Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages: Political economy, and effects on prices, purchases, and consumption," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    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. Gonçalves, Judite & Pereira dos Santos, João, 2020. "Brown sugar, how come you taste so good? The impact of a soda tax on prices and consumption," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    2. DeCicca, Philip & Kenkel, Donald & Liu, Feng, 2013. "Excise tax avoidance: The case of state cigarette taxes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1130-1141.
    3. Shu Wang & David Merriman & Frank Chaloupka, 2019. "Relative Tax Rates, Proximity, and Cigarette Tax Noncompliance: Evidence from a National Sample of Littered Cigarette Packs," Public Finance Review, , vol. 47(2), pages 276-311, March.
    4. Rozema, Kyle & Ziebarth, Nicolas R., 2015. "Behavioral Responses to Taxation: Cigarette Taxes and Food Stamp Take-Up," IZA Discussion Papers 8907, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Pourya Valizadeh & Shu Wen Ng, 2021. "Would A National Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Tax in the United States Be Well Targeted?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 961-986, May.
    6. John Cawley & David Frisvold & David Jones & Chelsea Lensing, 2021. "The Pass‐Through of a Tax on Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages in Boulder, Colorado," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 987-1005, May.
    7. Muhammad Salar Khan & Paul N. Thompson & Victor J. Tremblay, 2020. "Marijuana tax incidence, stockpiling, and cross-border substitution," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(1), pages 103-127, February.
    8. Lesley Chiou & Erich Muehlegger, 2014. "Consumer Response to Cigarette Excise Tax Changes," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 67(3), pages 621-650, September.
    9. Hansen, Benjamin & Miller, Keaton & Weber, Caroline, 2020. "Federalism, partial prohibition, and cross-border sales: Evidence from recreational marijuana," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    10. Keaton Miller & Boyoung Seo, 2021. "The Effect of Cannabis Legalization on Substance Demand and Tax Revenues," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(1), pages 107-145.
    11. Sunjin Ahn & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Non‐Pecuniary Effects of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 53-69, January.
    12. Christian Ben Lakhdar & Nicolas Gérard Vaillant & François-Charles Wolff, 2016. "Does smoke cross the border? Cigarette tax avoidance in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1073-1089, December.
    13. Bryan Bollinger & Steven E. Sexton, 2023. "Local excise taxes, sticky prices, and spillovers: evidence from Berkeley’s soda tax," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 281-331, June.
    14. Hindriks, Jean & Serse, Valerio, 2019. "Heterogeneity in the tax pass-through to spirit retail prices: Evidence from Belgium," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 142-160.
    15. Le Bodo, Yann & Etilé, Fabrice & Julia, Chantal & Friant-Perrot, Marine & Breton, Eric & Lecocq, Sébastien & Boizot-Szantai, Christine & Bergeran, Céline & Jabot, Françoise, 2022. "Public health lessons from the French 2012 soda tax and insights on the modifications enacted in 2018," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(7), pages 585-591.
    16. Xiang, Di & Zhan, Lue & Bordignon, Massimo, 2020. "A reconsideration of the sugar sweetened beverage tax in a household production model," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    17. Bishop, James, 2015. "Interacting effects of state cigarette taxes on smoking participation," MPRA Paper 66609, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Hoy, Kyle A. & Wrenn, Douglas H., 2020. "The effectiveness of taxes in decreasing candy purchases," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    19. Schmacker, Renke & Smed, Sinne, 2020. "Do prices and purchases respond similarly to soft drink tax increases and cuts?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    20. Neuhofer, Zachary & McFadden, Brandon R. & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk & House, Lisa, 2020. "Can the updated nutrition facts label decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0306919221001469. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.