Is cigarette smoking in poorer nations highly sensitive to price?

The dynamics of food, alcohol and cigarette consumption in Russia during transition

“…However, the estimated coefficients suggest a low price elasticity of demand. This result is consistent with the findings of a low price elasticity of demand for cigarettes in Russia and China by Lance et al (2004). Baltagi and Geishecker (2006) report a very broad range of price elasticities for alcohol, which does not allow for a precise comparison with our results.…”

Socioeconomic inequalities in alcohol use of adolescents: the differences between China and Finland

“…Although the prices of alcoholic beverages and cigarettes in China ranges a lot depending the brand and quality, the average price is affordable for most of the population and much less than in many other countries (National Bureau of Statistics of China 2013). Moreover, studies suggest that people in China are virtually insensitive to the price of alcoholic beverages (Tian & Liu 2011) and cigarettes (Lance et al 2004), due to the fact that many alcoholic beverages and cigarettes are consumed at public expense and absence of accompanying control policies with tax or pricing increasing, and therefore raising prices might not reduce substance use as much as previously suggested.…”

The Impact of Cigarette Tax Reduction on Consumption Behavior: Short-And Long-Term Empirical Evidence from Canada

“…This discrepancy provides additional ground to the suggestion that other very powerful predictors, such as antitobacco sentiment (Keeler, Hu et al, 2001;Lance, Akin et al, 2004;Alamar and Glantz, 2006;Marlow, 2007) or concern for current or future health, might perform better at explaining smoking behavioral change than taxes. In fact, although not analyzed in this research, in this same survey by Statistics Canada, consequences on current and future health came as the number 1 and number 2 reasons for quitting or reducing cigarette consumption in all 4 cycles of the research (Ouellet 2010).…”

“…Some suggest that lower income consumers are more likely to smoke (Ahrens 2009), are more sensitive to prices (Lois et al 1998;Gruber, Sen et al, 2003) and are more inclined to resort to contraband cigarettes (Lee et al 2009), while others demonstrate that there is no significant difference between income groups (Farrelly, Engelen et al, 2008). At the macro level, the level of economic development of the region or country, in other words its level of richness, has been shown to affect cigarette consumption such that poorer countries tend to have higher smoking rates than richer ones (Chapman et Richardson 1990;van der Merwe et Abedian, 1999;Lance, Akin et al, 2004). In the context of a price decrease, this all gives us two additional propositions to be empirically explored: Finally, exposition to societal, anti-tobacco advertising campaigns (Abernethy et Teel 1986, Wasserman et al 1991Novotny et al 1996;Baltagi et Levin 1986;Kaiserman et Rogers 1991;Seldon et Boyd 1991;Wasserman et al, 1991;Hu et al 1995) have also been studied and have been shown, with a certain consensus, to increase consumers' sensitivity to taxes.…”

“…In the context of a price decrease, this all gives us two additional propositions to be empirically explored: Finally, exposition to societal, anti-tobacco advertising campaigns (Abernethy et Teel 1986, Wasserman et al 1991Novotny et al 1996;Baltagi et Levin 1986;Kaiserman et Rogers 1991;Seldon et Boyd 1991;Wasserman et al, 1991;Hu et al 1995) have also been studied and have been shown, with a certain consensus, to increase consumers' sensitivity to taxes. In addition, other scholarly research has shown that anti-tobacco sentiment in a population does affect general price-demand elasticity, but it is hard to control for as it appears to be highly correlated with cigarette price and taxes (Keeler, Hu et al, 2001;Lance, Akin et al, 2004;Alamar et Glantz, 2006;Marlow, 2007). In other words, jurisdictions that most tax tobacco are also the ones where anti-tobacco sentiment is highest.…”