Addiction Recovery Research Center, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC, Roanoke, VA.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2020 Apr 21;22(5):782-790. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntz116.
The experimental tobacco marketplace (ETM) approximates real-world situations by estimating the effects of several, concurrently available products and policies on budgeted purchasing. Although the effects of increasing cigarette price on potentially less harmful substitutability are well documented, the effects of other, nuanced pricing policies remain speculative. This study used the ETM as a tool to assess the effects of two pricing policies, conventional cigarette taxation and e-liquid subsidization, on demand and substitutability.
During sampling periods, participants were provided 2-day samples of 24 mg/mL e-liquid, after which ETM purchase sessions occurred. Across two ETM sessions, conventional cigarettes were taxed or e-liquid was subsidized in combination with increasing cigarette price. The other four available products were always price constant and not taxed or subsidized.
E-liquid functioned as a substitute for conventional cigarettes across all conditions. Increasing cigarette taxation and e-liquid subsidization increased the number of participants for which e-liquid functioned as a substitute. Cigarette taxation decreased cigarette demand, by decreasing demand intensity, and marginally increased the initial intensity of e-liquid substitution, but did not affect the functions' slopes (substitutability). E-liquid subsidization resulted in large increases in the initial intensity of e-liquid substitution, but did not affect e-liquid substitutability nor cigarette demand.
24 mg/mL e-cigarette e-liquid was the only product to significantly substitute for cigarettes in at least one condition throughout the experiment; it functioned as a significant substitute throughout all four tax and all four subsidy conditions. Increasing cigarette taxes decreased cigarette demand through decreases in demand intensity but did not affect e-cigarette substitution. Increasing e-liquid subsidies increased e-liquid initial intensity of substitution but did not affect cigarette demand.
This study extended research on the behavioral economics of conventional cigarette demand and e-liquid substitutability in a complex marketplace. The results suggest that the most efficacious method to decrease conventional cigarette purchasing and increase e-liquid purchasing may involve greatly increasing cigarette taxes while also increasing the value of e-liquid through potentially less harmful product subsidization or differential taxation.
实验性烟草市场(ETM)通过同时估计几种产品和政策对预算购买的影响来模拟真实情况。虽然提高香烟价格对潜在的危害性较小的替代品的影响已有充分记录,但其他细微定价政策的影响仍在推测之中。本研究使用 ETM 作为工具,评估两种定价政策(普通香烟征税和电子烟液补贴)对需求和替代性的影响。
在采样期间,为参与者提供 24 毫克/毫升电子烟液的 2 天样本,然后进行 ETM 购买环节。在两个 ETM 环节中,普通香烟征税或电子烟液补贴与香烟价格上涨相结合。其他四种可用产品的价格始终保持不变,既不征税也不补贴。
电子烟液在所有条件下都可替代普通香烟。增加香烟税和电子烟液补贴增加了电子烟液作为替代品的参与者数量。香烟征税通过降低需求强度来减少香烟需求,并略微增加了电子烟液替代的初始强度,但不影响功能的斜率(替代性)。电子烟液补贴导致电子烟液替代的初始强度大幅增加,但不影响电子烟液的替代性或香烟的需求。
在整个实验过程中,24 毫克/毫升电子烟液是唯一一种在至少一种条件下显著替代香烟的产品;它在所有四种税收和所有四种补贴条件下都作为一种重要替代品发挥作用。增加香烟税通过降低需求强度来减少香烟需求,但不影响电子烟液替代。增加电子烟液补贴会增加电子烟液替代的初始强度,但不影响香烟需求。
本研究扩展了对传统香烟需求和电子烟液替代性的行为经济学的研究,在一个复杂的市场中进行。研究结果表明,减少传统香烟购买和增加电子烟液购买的最有效方法可能涉及大幅提高香烟税,同时通过潜在危害性较小的产品补贴或差别征税来增加电子烟液的价值。