O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

SER Published version

109 visualizações

Publicada em

  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

SER Published version

  1. 1. THE EFFECTS OF TAX CHANGES ON TOBACCO CONSUMPTION IN THAILAND BIRD CHONVIHARNPAN*,‡ and PHIL LEWIS†,§ *Faculty of Business, Government and Law University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia † Centre for Labour Market Research University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia ‡ bird.chonviharnpan@canberra.edu.au § phil.lewis@canberra.edu.au Published 2 September 2015 The purpose of this study is to examine the factors affecting the likelihood of consuming and the amount spent on tobacco in Thailand. Heckman’s sample selection model is applied to data from the 2009 socio-economic survey of Thailand in order to determine the factors determining the decision to consume tobacco. Demand elasticities are then calculated using the Extended Linear Expenditure System (ELES). Age, household size, gender, occupation and tenure are found to be common factors that influence both the probability of tobacco smoking and expenditure on tobacco products. Income also plays a key roles in explaining the amount spent on tobacco. Demand for tobacco is found to be inelastic for Thai smokers. Keywords: Heckman’s sample selection method; demographic characteristics; tobacco expenditures; extended linear expenditure system; demand elasticities. JEL Classification: D12. 1. Introduction The Thai National Statistics Office (2007) reported that the smoking prevalence rate de- clined from 29.7% in 1991 to 19.7% in 2007 or was equivalent to 10.89 million of the current smokers in the latest survey. The majority of current smokers, approximately 9.5 million, were daily smokers who had a 18.1% prevalence rate (Visaruthvong, 2010). The number of daily male smokers represented 9.1 million or a 35.5% prevalence rate, while female smokers, a smaller 0.4 million was equivalent to a 1.7% prevalence rate. Tobacco consumption is a leading behavioral risk factor causing preventable and pre- mature deaths worldwide (World Health Organization, 2012). It is estimated to result in the death of over five million smokers and around 0.6 million non-smokers exposed to second- hand smoke each year, of which 80% of smokers were found in low and middle income countries (World Health Organization, 2014). In Thailand, smoking in 2004 represented The Singapore Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 4 (2015) 1550084 (18 pages) © World Scientific Publishing Company DOI: 10.1142/S0217590815500848 1550084-1 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  2. 2. the 3rd and 7th highest risks among Thai men and women, respectively, measured by the Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) (Ministry of Public Health, 2007). Here, total mortality from smoking related diseases was recorded as 41,002 people, whereas morbidity was found to be 509,473 people (Tobacco Control Research and Knowledge Management Center, 2008). To reduce tobacco consumption, the Royal Thai Government has formulated various tobacco control policies along the lines of the WHO Framework Convention Tobacco Control (Tobacco Control Research and Knowledge Management Center, 2008; World Health Organization, 2013). These include the creation of smoke free environments; re- striction on advertising; sale and sponsorship; support for smoking cessation services; health warnings and health education. The negative health and economic consequences has drawn attention of the Thai government to intensively employ excise taxes as tools to curb tobacco consumption. A study of tobacco expenditures has two main policy objectives. First, taxes are a major source of government revenue. In Thailand, excise tax on tobacco has a primary aim of generating tax revenues for the Royal Thai Government (Visaruthvong, 2007). Second, the health risk of cigarette smoking is a main focus of health policy. In Thailand, tobacco taxes have provided a favorable outcome in raising tax revenues because there has been a large increase in the ratio of tobacco taxes to retail prices compared to other countries (Sarntisart, 2011; World Health Organization, 2010). Since 1992, raising tax rates on tobacco from 55% to 85% and public health policies were intensively implemented with the aim of reducing smoking initiation by young adults (Chaloupka and Laixuthai, 1996; Chantornvong and McCargo, 2001; Excise Department, 2007; Thailand Tobacco Monopoly, 2009). The excise tax on cigarettes was increased nine times from 55% in 1992 to 80% in 2009, equivalent to about 60–70% of the retail price to consumers (White and Ross, 2015). As a consequence, tax revenues increased by 241% and tobacco smoking reduced by 12%. Recently, there has been literature on demand for tobacco in Thailand, but little detailed econometric analysis and use of demographic variables. Tungthangthum (1997) analyzed demand for cigarettes in Thailand using annual time series data from 1983 to 1994. The author used double log generalized least squares to estimate the short-run and long-run price elasticities of demand under myopic and rational addiction approaches. Per capita consumption of cigarettes was related to the weighted-average real price per pack of cigarettes, real gross regional product, population aged 15 years and above, the number of foreign cigarette smokers (as a proxy for legal sale of foreign cigarette) and a dummy variable representing the legal sale of foreign cigarettes. As a result, price elasticities of demand for cigarette were obtained of À0.73 in the short-run; and between À0.90 to À1.065 in the long-run. Sarntisart and Warr (1993) estimated price elasticities of demand for alcoholic bev- erages and tobacco (in the same group) using the Thai household consumption expenditure data for 1988. In 2003, Sarntisart et al. (2003) also studied demand for tobacco products in Thailand. The latter research applied a Linear Expenditure System (LES) to the 2000 socio-economic survey. The overall price elasticity of demand for tobacco products was The Singapore Economic Review 1550084-2 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  3. 3. estimated to be À0.39. Poorer households in urban areas were found to be more responsive to price changes than their rural counterparts. Also, younger households were found to be sensitive to price changes. Finally, Chandoevwit and Dahldy (2007) examined the price elasticity of tobacco in Thailand. The Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS) was applied to consumption ex- penditure from the national income accounts from 1983 to 2002 (1998–1999 data were omitted because of the non-normal consumption shares due to the 1997 economic crisis). The price elasticity of demand for tobacco products was estimated to be À0.8. The above papers contained some similarities and differences. First, all studies focused on commercially manufactured cigarettes rather than other types of tobacco products. Second, Sarntisart et al. (2003); Sarntisart and Warr (1993) and Chandoevwit and Dahldy (2007) made use of a complete demand system, while Tungthangthum (1997) relied on a single demand equation. Third, Tungthangthum (1997) and Chandoevwit and Dahldy (2007) used time series data from the national income accounts, but Sarntisart et al. (2003) and Sarntisart and Warr (1993) employed cross-sectional data from the survey conducted by the Thai National Statistics Office. Fourth, although they adopted different types of data, price elasticities of demand for tobacco were estimated to have a range of between 0 and À1. Finally, Chandoevwit and Dahldy (2007); Sarntisart et al. (2003) and Sarntisart and Warr (1993) obtained only short-run price elasticities, whereas Tungthangthum (1997) computed both short- and long-run price elasticities. Some weaknesses of these studies are as follows: Even though all studies were carried out at the national level and derived logical signs of coefficients, the research suffered from lack of inclusion of demographic variables (Chandoevwit and Dahldy, 2007; Sarntisart et al., 2003; Tungthangthum, 1997). The analyses made use of only positive values on household tobacco expenditures (Sarntisart et al., 2003; Sarntisart and Warr, 1993), that raises a question of not randomly selected data. None of these studies employed alcohol data as this variable has been found to be a quite crucial factor in estimating demand for tobacco. Other studies in Italy, the UK and the USA reported a strong link between tobacco and alcoholic consumption (Aristei and Pieroni, 2008; Fry and Pashardes, 1994; Goel and Morey, 1995; Jones, 1989). Internationally, many studies have used micro cross-sectional data to explain factors affecting decision to smoke and how much to spend on cigarettes (Atkinson et al., 1984; Blaylock and Blisard, 1991; Jones, 1989). The above literature provides the basis of econometric analysis on demand for tobacco in Thailand. This paper uses the Heckman two-stage sample selection method and the Extended Linear Expenditure System (ELES). Data are from the 2009 socio-economic Survey of Thailand. 2. Theoretical Model Observations with zero values on consumption of tobacco found in cross-sectional surveys has drawn attention to the problem of using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) for estimating coefficients. If samples are randomly selected, then OLS is efficient (Hill et al., 2008). But, if only positive consumption of tobacco is chosen from a cross-sectional survey and OLS is The Effects of Tax Changes on Tobacco Consumption in Thailand 1550084-3 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  4. 4. adopted, the results are inconsistent and biased because the positive consumption of to- bacco is not randomly selected. The Heckman model consists of (1) the selection equation determining whether the variable of interest is observed or not observed and (2) the equation of interest. In the selection equation, N observations represent the whole sample, but only n for the variable of interest is observed (n < NÞ. The first equation or the explicit selection equation is added to the population equation of interest y ¼ xβ þ u, EðujxÞ ¼ 0, s ¼ 1½zγ þ v ‚ 0Š, ¼ 0, otherwise, where y is tobacco expenditure; x is a matrix of variables that affect tobacco expenditure in the equation of interest; β is a vector of coefficients; u and v are random error terms; z is a matrix of exogenous variables in the selection equation; s ¼ 1 if we observe y and zero otherwise. In selection bias, variables that do not belong in the selection equation may appear to be determinants of y in the equation of interest when regressions are fitted to selected samples (Heckman, 1979). If the errors of these two equations (u, v) are correlated, a selectivity problem will arise when y in the linear equation of interest is computed from z given s ¼ 1. This is because the sample selection problem also causes s and v to be related, E(vjz, s) is simply the inverse Mills ratio (IMR) when s ¼ 1 (Wooldridge, 2006). To overcome this shortcoming, we need consistent estimators as follows Eðyjz, s ¼ 1Þ ¼ xβ þ λðzγÞ, where λ is the IMR. This is the expected value of y given z and observed y is equal to xβ plus additional terms depending on the IMR (λ) evaluated at zγ. The IMR is equal to λi ¼ λðziγÞ for each i: We can calculate the value of s conditional on z from the first step (Probit model) using the entire sample. After obtaining γ, we then compute the value of IMR and include this term as an extra explanatory variable in the second step. The IMR is calculated from the Probit regression (Heckman, 1979), which represents the ratio of the standard normal density function to the standard cumulative distribution function or the probability of observing non-zero over the probability of observing zero. IMRih ¼ ’ðD1h,…, Dkh, PiÞ ðD1h,…, Dkh, PjÞ for Zih ¼ 1 The Singapore Economic Review 1550084-4 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  5. 5. and IMRih ¼ ’ðD1h,…, Dkh, PiÞ 1 À ðD1h,…, Dkh, PjÞ for Zih ¼ 0, where Dkh are the k demographic characteristics of the h household and Zih is a zero–one variable where Zih ¼ 1 if the household consumes tobacco and Zih ¼ 0 if the household does not consume tobacco. Finally, the least squares estimation of the structural equation will yield consistent estimators. 2.1. The ELES The ELES has been developed from an intertemporal maximization of the Stone–Geary utility function (Howe, 1977). The model expresses total consumption expenditure as a linear function of prices and income. Consumption expenditure will be an optimal allo- cation at the beginning of the consumer plan when the instantaneous utility function is Klein–Rubin (Lluch, 1973). It is a generalization of the LES in which the independence of income from the errors in the expenditure equation enables identification. The alternative development of the ELES is to employ current income instead of permanent income, which implies that saving is excluded from current income and marginal propensity to consume will reflect the current income version (Howe, 1977). The ELES assumes a two-stage budgeting decision processes (Lewis and Andrews, 1989). Individuals allocate income to purchase subsistence expenditures in the first stage and then they will allocate the remaining amount of income on discretionary expenditures. Consequently, the ELES can yield the subsistence expenditures and marginal propensity to consume from broadly defined goods, in our cases; tobacco and all other goods. Our analysis will also add the IMR into the ELES model piqi ¼ piai þ bà i Y À Xn j¼1 pjaj ! þ γiIMRi, where piqi is monthly household expenditure on good i; piai is subsistence expenditures; bà i is the marginal propensity to consume for good i and Y is monthly income. The formulas for elasticities are as follows: ey ¼ bà i Y=piqi for i ¼ 1, 2 where ey, bà i and Y are the income elasticity, marginal propensity to consume of good i and monthly income of household, respectively, and piqi are the price and quantity of good i. ee ¼ bà i =wi, for i ¼ 1, 2 where ee is the expenditure elasticity, bà i is the marginal propensity to consume of good i and wi is the average budget share of commodity i. eii ¼ ð1 À bà i Þ=ðpiai=piqiÞ À 1, for i ¼ 1, 2 The Effects of Tax Changes on Tobacco Consumption in Thailand 1550084-5 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  6. 6. where eii, bà i and piqi are, respectively, the price elasticity, the marginal propensity to consume of good i and the price and quantity of good i and piai is the subsistence quantity of good i. 3. Data The data are drawn from the 2009 socio-economic survey of Thailand conducted by the Thai National Statistics Office. The 2009 survey data includes data on income, expendi- tures, liabilities, assets, structure of household members, household characteristics, im- migration and remittance transfer and social welfare payments from government (National Statistics Office, 2009). The survey adopts a stratified two-stage sampling. There are 76 provinces (76 constituted strata) and each stratum was divided into municipal areas and non-municipal (two sub-stratums) areas. First, the primary Sample Units are selected blocks from municipal areas and villages from non-municipal areas independently using the probability proportional to the total number of households in the blocks or villages. The Secondary Sampling Units were selected private households (non-institutional households residing permanently in municipal areas and villages of all regions) as ultimate sampling units from the total number of households from the blocks and villages. At this stage, households from every block and village are listed to serve as the sampling frame and they are rearranged by size of household (number of household members) and type of socio-economic classes (the occupation that generated the highest income in the house- hold). Finally, private sampled households were selected by using stratified sampling for each type of local administration. A total of 51,970 households across the nation were surveyed during the period of January–December 2009 and 43,844 households are available for the analysis. Here, data are primarily collected by face-to-face interviews. The response rate was 84%. The household survey does not identify individual smokers but household expenditure on tobacco. Since there were missing data from the 2009 household expenditure and income survey, the incomplete information was deleted from observations for this study. The number of final observations consists of 41,229 households, of which 12,649 households reported spending on tobacco. Hence, there are large proportions of households reporting zero consumption of tobacco — which means it is important to accommodate zero ex- penditure in this analysis. 4. Variables Most of the previous research in Thailand has not incorporated demographic variables. Here, a survey of the literature on consumption of tobacco from international studies is used to suggest factors influencing the decisions to consume and how much to spend on tobacco. The following are socio-demographic factors that have been posited as deter- mining the decisions to smoke and consumption levels. Education has been found to have an impact on the participation and consumption levels of tobacco. Zhao and Harris (2004) observed that Australians who attained less than year 12 had higher probabilities of smoking than those with year 12 or diploma degree. Su and The Singapore Economic Review 1550084-6 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  7. 7. Yen (2000) argued that there was a negative relationship between education and the probability of consuming cigarettes in the US. Garcia and Labeaga (1996) in a Spanish study noted that those with higher education levels were less likely to be smokers. Man- rique and Jensen (2004) found that highly educated people had lower levels of tobacco consumption in Spain. Yen (2005a) reported that education was negatively related to the likelihood of tobacco consumption being observed among US men and women, but tended to have an opposite effect on consumption levels of smokers. Blaylock and Blisard (1991) also found that more educated women in the USA were less likely to start smoking, but smoker’s education level did not affect the number of cigarettes smoked. Similarly, Aristei and Pieroni (2008) reported that higher education decreased both the probability of smoking and the level of expenditure in Italy. In our study, the highest education attained by the Thai household heads is a dummy variable and is broken down into five different levels; i.e., kindergarten and primary school levels; secondary school level; high school and vocational level; college and undergraduate levels; postgraduate level and other specialized courses. Occupation has been identified as one of the key determinants of the likelihood of tobacco expenditures being observed and of consumption levels. Blaylock and Blisard (1991) found that US working women had a lower probability of starting smoking and Blaylock and Blisard (1992) obtained a lower probability of being smokers for low-income women in the USA. On the other hand, Garcia and Labeaga (1996) provided no empirical evidence of a relation with occupation in Spain. Yen (2005a) reported for the USA, both white collar and employed men and women had a higher cigarette consumption than the unemployed. Atkinson et al. (1984) argued that British white collar workers had reduced their tobacco expenditures over time. Manrique and Jensen (2004) confirmed a negative relationship between employed households and tobacco spending in Spain. Aristei and Pieroni (2008) found that a white collar worker reduced both the probability of being smokers and the consumption levels. From our viewpoint, the socio-economic class of household heads is a dummy variable and is separated into eight groups; i.e., farmers that own land; farmers that rent land; fishing; entrepreneurs; professional; laborers; other employees and economically inactive. Area of residence has been found to influence the probability of a household’s de- cision to consume tobacco. Two studies have found that US men and women in urban and suburban residences were less likely to consume tobacco compared to rural resi- dences (Su and Yen, 2000; Yen, 2005a). These studies were different to the findings of Blaylock and Blisard (1991, 1992). Another study in Spain indicated a positive impact of households in rural regions on tobacco expenditures (Manrique and Jensen, 2004). Our study also divides the area of residence into urban and rural areas, as a dummy variable. Size of household has been found to be positively related to tobacco purchase in the Spain (Manrique and Jensen, 2004). Moreover, this factor affected both the probability of consuming tobacco and the amount consumed (Garcia and Labeaga, 1996). The number of family members is included as a continuous variable in our analysis. The Effects of Tax Changes on Tobacco Consumption in Thailand 1550084-7 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  8. 8. Gender tends to affect the preferences and behavior that influence participation and consumption patterns. Males have been found to have greater participation in consumption of tobacco than females in Australia (Zhao and Harris, 2004) and in the USA (Su and Yen, 2000). Atkinson et al. (1984) and Deaton and Irish (1984) emphasized that British men were more likely to consume tobacco. However, Aristei and Pieroni (2008) concluded that being male had a negative effect on both the probability of smoking and the number of cigarette smoked in Italy. Yen (2005a) suggested that gender affected both the likelihood of consuming tobacco and expenditure on tobacco in the US. Gender of household head is included in our modeling as a dummy variable. A number of analyses have shown different tobacco consumption prevalence according to the age of household head. Zhao and Harris (2004); Su and Yen (2000) and Garcia and Labeaga (1996) found that older people had lower probability of tobacco participation in Australia, the USA and Spain, respectively. Likewise, Deaton and Irish (1984) found that British household heads aged 45–60 had greater propensity to purchase tobacco than the age group under 25, but this diminished for the age group 60 and over. Atkinson et al. (1984) found that British youths aged above 16 with household members who smoked, tended to consume more, but older people consumed less cigarettes. Manrique and Jensen (2004) found the same results to Atkinson et al. (1984) for Spanish youths. Blaylock and Blisard (1992) pointed out the probability of observing a smoker peaked at age 31, while cigarette consumption peaked at age 40 and then declined. According to Yen (2005a), the probability of consuming tobacco fell, but expenditure on tobacco in the USA rose when the age of household head increased. Therefore, age of household head is also included as a continuous variable in the study. Finally, monthly household income has been found to play a key role in determining the likelihood of tobacco being consumed (Garcia and Labeaga, 1996; Jones, 1989; Manrique and Jensen, 2004). Aristei and Pieroni (2008) and Deaton and Irish (1984) indicated tobacco consumption rose as household income rose, but at a decreasing rate. However, Yen (2005a) found that income was not a significant factor in the consumption of cigarettes for men and women in the USA and this agreed with Blaylock and Blisard (1992) for the low-income women in the USA. Our study makes use of monthly household income as a continuous variable. The first step in our estimation in this paper is to model the decision to smoke. Our study has followed a number of previous studies by employing demographic character- istics; age of the household heads; household size, the presence of both children aged below 15 and adults aged above 60 as well as region occupation types and education levels and alcohol consumption as a binary variable to explain the likelihood of tobacco ex- penditure being observed in the first step. Some explanatory variables from the first step are included in the second step as well as the variables of most interest, price and income, because they should have a role in determining the expenditure on tobacco. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics from the 2009 socio-economic survey of Thai- land. Average expenditure on tobacco was 197 Baht per month for the overall sample compared to 216 Baht per month for consuming households. The mean of monthly income from these selected households was around 17,005 Baht per month. Mean age of The Singapore Economic Review 1550084-8 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  9. 9. Table 1. Variables and Sample Statistics Variables Definitions Mean Standard Deviation Tobacco Monthly expenditure on tobacco (Baht/Mth) 197 178 Consuming household (Baht/Mth) 216 175 Tobacco binary dependent variable 1 ¼ tobacco expenditure being ob- served, n ¼ 12,649 0 ¼ other- wise Alcoholic beverages Monthly expenditure on alcohol (Baht/Mth) 249 533 Consuming household (Baht/Mth) 659 693 Alcohol binary dependent variable 1 ¼ alcohol expenditure being ob- served, n ¼ 6,521 0 ¼ otherwise Continuous explanatory variables Income Monthly income (Baht) 17,005 17,100 Age Age of household head (Years) 49 13 Household structure Household size Number of household members 3.74 1.72 Presence of children aged 15 Presence of children aged below 15 0.54 0.50 Presence of adults aged 60 Presence of adults aged above 60 0.29 0.45 Binary explanatory variables Area of Residence Municipal Municipal 0.48 0.50 Sex of Household Head Male Male 0.84 0.37 Highest Education level of Household Head Postgraduate and others* 0.07 0.26 Pre and primary Kindergarten and primary 0.55 0.50 Secondary Secondary school 0.20 0.40 High school and vocational High school and vocational 0.08 0.27 College and undergraduate College and university 0.08 0.28 Occupation Farm operator that owns lands* 0.20 0.40 Farmers that rent lands Farm operator that rents lands 0.04 0.19 Fishing and forestry Fishing, forestry, hunting, agricul- tural services 0.03 0.16 Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurs, trade, industry and service 0.17 0.37 Professional Professional, technical and mana- gerial 0.06 0.24 Laborers Laborers 0.09 0.28 Other employees Other employees 0.35 0.48 The Effects of Tax Changes on Tobacco Consumption in Thailand 1550084-9 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  10. 10. household head was equal to 49 years and average household size was close to four people. 48% of the sample lived in urban areas and 84% of the household heads were male. In terms of educational attainment, 55% of the heads of households graduated from primary school or lower. With respect to occupation types, 35% of the overall respondents worked as employees and 20% of the farm operator owns lands. Around 79% of the household sample owned or rented houses. About 83% of the household heads were married or married with unknown status, while 34% and 25% resided in Northeast and Central and 20% lived in South, respectively. 5. Results 5.1. The first step estimation Table 2 reports both parameters and significance levels for the decision to consume to- bacco. Household heads that drink alcoholic beverages are found to have a lower likeli- hood of smoking tobacco — the two goods are substitutes. This tobacco parameter is consistent with the studies of Jones (1989) in the UK, but contrary to Aristei and Pieroni (2008) in Italy. Table 1. (Continued) Variables Definitions Mean Standard Deviation Economically inactive Unemployment 0.06 0.24 Tenure Own dwelling on land, dwelling on rented land or dwelling on public area* 0.79 0.41 Rent or rent paid by others Rent, rent paid by others or occu- pied rented free 0.20 0.40 Hire Purchase Hire purchase or other 0.01 0.11 Marital status Married or with unknown status* 0.83 0.38 Never Married Never married 0.05 0.22 Widowed Widowed 0.09 0.29 Divorced Divorced 0.02 0.12 Separated Separated 0.02 0.14 Region South* 0.20 0.40 Bangkok Bangkok 0.04 0.20 Central Central 0.25 0.43 North North 0.17 0.39 Northeast Northeast 0.34 0.47 Note: *refers to the reference group. The Singapore Economic Review 1550084-10 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  11. 11. Table 2. Estimated Parameters for the Selection and Outcome Equations (1) (2) Variables Tobacco (Binary Dep Var) Tobacco Expenditure Alcohol (Binary) À1.219*** LogAge 0.437*** À48.87*** Household size À0.113*** À10.85*** Children aged 15 0.136** À1.988 Adults aged 60 À0.00214 14.91*** Municipal 0.287*** Male À1.099*** À39.25*** Pre and primary À1.231*** Secondary À1.292*** High school and vocational À0.757*** College and undergraduate À0.341 Farmers that rent land 0.0943 4.419 Fishing and forestry À0.342*** 27.10** Entrepreneurs 0.769*** 67.52*** Professional 0.939*** 102.8*** Laborers À0.403*** 23.68*** Other employees 0.0737 51.78*** Unemployed 0.753*** 36.67*** Rent or rent paid by others À0.186** 34.32*** Hire purchase 0.367 52.03*** Never married 0.487*** Widowed 0.0690 Divorced 0.121 Separated 0.114 Bangkok 0.814*** Central 0.462*** North 0.192** Northeast 0.0676 LogIncome 99.65*** Alcohol expenditure 0.0101*** lambda À147.2*** Constant 2.458*** À505.2*** Observations 7,575 8,305 Rho À0.967 À0.967 Sigma 152.1 152.1 Lambda À147.2 À147.2 R-Squared 0.2511 The Effects of Tax Changes on Tobacco Consumption in Thailand 1550084-11 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  12. 12. Heads of families with higher age have higher probabilities of consuming cigarettes compared to younger household heads. This result is dissimilar to that of a number of studies in the UK (Atkinson et al., 1984), for US women (Blaylock and Blisard, 1991), for the low-income women in the USA (Blaylock and Blisard, 1992), in Spain (Garcia and Labeaga, 1996; Manrique and Jensen, 2004) and in Italy (Aristei and Pieroni, 2008). Meanwhile, Zhao and Harris (2004) indicated that aging reduced the chances of participating in tobacco and alcoholic beverages in Australia, but increased the expenditure on smoking and drinking. Also, Yen (2005a) postulated older US men had lower probability of smoking, but given that they started smoking, they smoked more than younger men. The results suggest that the larger the size of a household, the lower the likelihood of consuming tobacco. Jones (1992) is the only study to report a similar result to our study. On the other hand, our finding contradicts the studies by both Atkinson et al. (1984) and Jones (1989) in the UK; Manrique and Jensen (2004) in Spain and Blaylock and Blisard (1991) for women in the USA. The presence of children aged below 15 tends to increase the probability of consuming tobacco. This finding is associated with Zhao and Harris (2004), but not by both Blaylock and Blisard (1991) and Blaylock and Blisard (1992) in the USA and Aristei and Pieroni (2008) in Italy. Households residing in municipal areas have greater probability of participating in cigarette smoking compared to those in non-municipal areas. This provides a similar result to a number of studies in Spain (Manrique and Jensen, 2004), in the USA (Su and Yen, 2000) and for the low-income women in the US (Blaylock and Blisard, 1991, 1992). Households with male heads are less likely to smoke cigarette relative to female household heads, as it has also shown to be the case in Italy (Aristei and Pieroni, 2008). This is opposite to the USA where men and women revealed lower likelihood of consuming tobacco, but higher expenditure on tobacco (Yen, 2005b). Household heads attaining pre and primary, secondary, high school and vocational levels have a lower tendency to consume tobacco products compared to those with post- graduate level qualifications. This result is similar to that found for Australia where people with education levels less than year 12, diploma or degree resulted in lower probabilities of smoking cigarettes (Zhao and Harris, 2004), but contrary to several studies in Spain, Italy Table 2. (Continued) (1) (2) Variables Tobacco (Binary Dep Var) Tobacco Expenditure Likelihood ratio 1241.61 Goodness of fit test Correctly classified 90.78 Breusch–Pagan test for heteroskedasticity 3.74 *** Statistically significant at the 0.01 level and ** at the 0.05 level. Note: Standard errors are available from the authors upon request. The Singapore Economic Review 1550084-12 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  13. 13. and the US (Aristei and Pieroni, 2008; Lebeaga, 1999; Manrique and Jensen, 2004; Su and Yen, 2000). Yen (2005a) suggested that education played a negative role in the probability of smoking, but not the level of smoking among US males and females. When examining household occupation, household heads who work in fishing and forestry and laborers have lower tendencies to purchase tobacco than farmers that own land. On the other hand, heads of the families who are employed in entrepreneurial or professional occupations, or even unemployed, have higher probabilities of smoking. This result is partly in agreement with a few studies. First, Garcia and Labeaga (1996) reported that the unemployed people raised the probabilities of consuming cigarettes in Spain. Second, US female workers had lower probabilities of consuming cigarette than non- working women (Blaylock and Blisard, 1991, 1992). Third, Australian workers and un- employed people tended to smoke, but students had lower probabilities of consuming tobacco (Zhao and Harris, 2004). In contrast, our results are different to the studies in the UK (Atkinson et al., 1984) and in Italy (Aristei and Pieroni, 2008). Households that rent land demonstrate lower likelihood of smoking cigarettes, com- paring to home owners. This evidence is consistent to the studies for the women in the USA and for Australia (Blaylock and Blisard, 1991; Zhao and Harris, 2004), but different from Manrique and Jensen (2004) in Spain and Aristei and Pieroni (2008) in Italy. With respect to marital status, household heads who have never married are more likely to consume tobacco than household heads who have married. Finally, in terms of region, household heads living in Bangkok, Central and North exhibit a higher probability of smoking than families that live in the South. At the 5% significance level, the percentage of correct predictions of tobacco con- sumption in this model is over 90%. Our R-squared is around 25% and is fairly reasonable for studies using unit record data. 5.2. The second step estimation As Table 2 shows, income has a positive impact on tobacco expenditure. Older household heads tend to have lower consumption of cigarettes, although their probabilities of smoking cigarettes being observed are greater. Households that have greater number of family members have reduced expenditure on cigarettes. Having adults aged 60 or above at home implies an increase in tobacco expenditure. Household with female heads, are more likely to consume cigarettes given the decision to smoke in the first step. Being a white collar employee, entrepreneur, professional, a blue collar, both laborers and other employees; working in forestry and fishing and unemployed, have a greater expenditure on tobacco than farmers that own land. Households with hire purchase properties will also consume more cigarettes than home owners. Finally, although households who consume alcohol are less likely to smoke, for those who do smoke, alcohol and cigarette consumption are positively related. Lambda is statistically significant at the 1% level, indicating that failure to delete zero observations will result in inconsistent and biased estimates. The Effects of Tax Changes on Tobacco Consumption in Thailand 1550084-13 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  14. 14. Table 3 reports parameter estimates for subsistence expenditure and marginal propen- sity to consume. Thailand’s households have a subsistence level at 159 Baht and 3,856 Baht for tobacco and other goods, respectively. The parameters for the MPC for tobacco and other goods are 0.004 and 0.52, respectively. The R-squared of tobacco are approxi- mately 27%, while that of other good are around 63%. All coefficients also show statistical significance at the 1% levels. Average expenditure and marginal budget share are presented in Table 4. The average expenditure for tobacco and other goods are 197 and 14,657 Baht per household. The marginal budget share for tobacco is relatively low, 1%, compared to the marginal budget share for other goods with 99%. Income, expenditure and price elasticities are shown in Table 5. The income elasticities for tobacco and other goods are equal to 0.34 and 0.63, respectively, suggesting that the two goods are necessities. In general, households tend to purchase tobacco and other goods less than proportionality with respect to a rise in income. The price elasticities for tobacco products and other goods are estimated to be À0.27 and À0.87, respectively. These in- dicate that tobacco is relatively inelastic demand, while for other goods, the elasticity is close to unity. This low elasticity is consistent with the time series evidence for Thailand, whereby prices of cigarettes have increased significantly overtime in Thailand with little change in expenditure on tobacco. The estimated elasticity also falls within the range of estimates for other countries. International studies have reported that the estimated price elasticities of demand for tobacco is below À0.5 in several developing countries. These include À0.21 in Turkey (Tansel, 1993), À0.18 in China (Mao and Xiang, 1997), À0.11 in Brazil (Costa e Silva, 1998) and À0.13 and À0.18 for the short-run and long-run in Malaysia (Al-Sadat, 2005). The expenditure elasticities for tobacco and other goods are 0.29 and 0.53, respectively. These imply an increase in total expenditure by 10%, will be associated with rising expenditures on tobacco and other goods by 2.9 and 5.3%, respectively. Table 4. Marginal Budget Shares and Average Expenditure Average Expenditure (Baht/Month) Marginal Budget Share Tobacco 197 0.01 Other Goods 14,657 0.99 Table 3. ELES Estimates Subsistence (Baht/Month) MPC IMR R-Squared Observations Tobacco 159*** 0.004*** À241.33*** 26.83 7,575 Other Goods 3,856*** 0.52*** À2131.22*** 63.40 7,575 ***Statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Note: Standard errors are available from the authors upon request. The Singapore Economic Review 1550084-14 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  15. 15. Our derived income elasticity for tobacco is higher than the estimated income elastic- ities for low income classes in both urban and rural areas found by Sarntisart et al. (2003). He obtained income elasticities of 0.17 and 0.15 for low income classes across urban and rural areas, respectively. The estimated own-price elasticity for tobacco is close to that found by Lluch et al. (1977), but not for Sarntisart et al. (2003). However, it is not possible to compare directly with the study by Lluch et al. (1977) because their estimated value contained a mixed commodities between food, beverages and tobacco. Lastly, the estimated expenditure elasticity is relatively high compared to Lluch et al. (1977), but low compared to Sarntisart et al. (2003). Lluch et al. (1977) suggested the expenditure elasticity for food which is equal to 0.84, while Sarntisart et al. (2003) estimated the expenditure elasticity for tobacco to be 0.98. 6. Conclusion This paper has used the Heckman method to estimate the factors affecting the choice of smoking. Household demand elasticities for tobacco in Thailand were estimated using the ELES. The results of the first step are as follow. Households that drink alcoholic beverages will have a lower probability of smoking tobacco. Heads of families with higher age have greater likelihood of consuming cigarettes. Households with larger size have a lower probability of consuming tobacco. The presence of children aged below 15 years tends to increase the probability of smoking cigarettes. Families residing in municipal areas have higher likelihood of participating in smoking. Households with male heads have less likelihood of smoking cigarettes. Households with heads attaining from pre and primary education to high school and vocational education, have lower tendencies to consume tobacco compared to those with postgraduate levels of education. Fishing and forestry workers and laborers have lower probability of consuming tobacco, while white collar workers, in particular, entrepreneurs and professionals, as well as unemployed, appear to have higher propensities to smoke. Tenants who rent land are less likely to consume tobacco compared to home owners. In terms of marital status, household with heads who have never married have more proba- bility of consuming tobacco than households whose heads married. Finally, families re- siding in Bangkok, Central and North Thailand, exhibit higher likelihood of smoking tobacco than those living in the South. In the second step equation, income and the amount spent on alcoholic beverages are likely to explain tobacco purchase. Older heads of the households tend to have lower Table 5. Estimated Elasticities for the Thai Household Demand Income Elasticity Expenditure Elasticity Price Elasticity Tobacco 0.34 0.29 À0.27 Other Goods 0.63 0.53 À0.87 The Effects of Tax Changes on Tobacco Consumption in Thailand 1550084-15 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  16. 16. cigarette consumption. The larger the size of a household, the lower consumption of tobacco. However, the presence of adults aged over 60 have contributed to higher tobacco consumption. Households with heads who are female, have greater tobacco consumption. Occupations farmers, white and blue collars, including unemployed, have positive impacts on tobacco expenditure. Tenants who rent land appear to consume more tobacco compared to home owners. Lambda is significant, so deleting zero observations will result in in- consistent and biased estimates. Estimated demand elasticities demonstrate that tobacco and all other goods are neces- sities. All expenditure elasticities also exhibit positive values and are less than one. Own- price elasticities are À0.27 and À0.87 for tobacco and all other goods, respectively, which suggest that tobacco is not as sensitive to price changes, as all other goods. These results suggest several policy implications: For public health policies, using excise taxes to reduce tobacco consumption is unlikely to be very effective. From a revenue policy perspective, a low price elasticity of demand for tobacco means that tobacco taxes can be considered a stable source of revenues for the Royal Thai Government. This study contains limitations as follows. First, there is a lack of price data in the household survey. Only expenditure data is available. Second, there are no data on non- cigarette (legal or illegal) consumption such as on roll-your own. Finally, there is no accounting in the modeling for the possible impacts of anti-smoking policy variables. References Al-Sadat, NAM (2005). Demand analysis of tobacco consumption in Malaysia. Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance. Aristei, D and L Pieroni (2008). A double-hurdle appraoch to modelling tobacco consumption in Italy. Applied Economics, 40(19), 2463–2476. Atkinson, AB, J Gomulka and NH Stern (1984). Household expenditure on tobacco 1970–1980: Evidence from the family expenditure survey. Programme on Taxation, Incentives and the Distribution of Income. London School of Economics. Blaylock, JR and WN Blisard (1991). Consumer demand analysis when zero consumption occurs: The case of cigarettes. Commodity Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US De- partment of Agriculture, Washington. Blaylock, JR and WN Blisard (1992). US cigarette consumption: The case of low-income women. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(3), 698–705. Chaloupka, FJ and A Laixuthai (1996). US Trade Policy and Cigarette Smoking in Asia. Cam- bridge, MA. Chandoevwit, W and B Dahlby (2007). The marginal cost of public funds for excise taxes in Thailand. eJournal of Tax Research, 5(1), 135–167. Chantornvong, S and D McCargo (2001). Political economy of tobacco control in Thailand. To- bacco Control, 10(1), 48–54. Costa e Silva, VL (1998). The Brazillian cigarette industry: Prospects for consumption reductionn. I Abedian, R van der Merwe, N Wilkins and P Jha (eds.), In The economics of tobacco control: Towards an optimal policy Mix. Applied Fiscal Research Center, University of Cape Town, pp. 336–349. Deaton, A and M Irish (1984). Statistical models for zero expenditures in household budgets. Journal of Public Economics, 23, 59–80. The Singapore Economic Review 1550084-16 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  17. 17. Excise Department (2007). Annual report 2006. Excise Department, Bangkok. Fry, V and P Pashardes (1994). Abstention and aggregation in consumer demand: Zero tobacco expenditures. Oxford Economic Papers, 46(3), 502–518. Garcia, J and JM Labeaga (1996). Alternative approaches to modelling zero expenditure: An application to Spanish demand for tobacco. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 58(3), 489–506. Goel, KR and MJ Morey (1995). The independence of Cigarette and Liquor Demand. Southern Economic Journal, 62, 451–459. Heckman, JJ (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometica, 47(1), 153–161. Hill, RC, WE Griffiths and GC Lim (2008). Principles of Econometrics. 3rd Edition. US: John Wiley Sons. Howe, H (1977). Cross-section application of linear expenditure systems: Response to socio- demographic effects. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(1), 141–148. Jones, AM (1989). A double-hurdle model of cigarette consumption. Journal of Applied Econo- metrics, 4(1), 23–39. Jones, AM (1992). A note on computation of the double-hurdle model with dependence with an application to tobacco expenditure. Bulletin of Economic Research, 44(1), 67–74. Lebeaga, JM (1999). A double-hurdle rational addiction model with heterogeneity: Estimating the demand for tobacco. Journal of Econometrics, 93, 49–72. Lewis, P and N Andrews (1989). Household demand in China. Applied Economics, 21, 793–807. Lluch, C (1973). The extended linear expenditure system. European Economic Review, 4, 21–32. Lluch, C, AA Powell and RA Williams (1977). Patterns in Household Demand and Saving. The World Bank, Oxford University Press. Manrique, J and HH Jensen (2004). Consumption of tobacco and alcoholic beverages among spanish consumers. Southwestern Economic Review, 31, 41–56. Mao, ZZ and JL Xiang (1997). Demand for cigarettes and factors affecting the demand: A cross- sectional survey. In Tobacco Control in Developing Countries, P Jhaand and FJ Chaloupka (eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Public Health (2007). Thailand health profile 2005–2007. Bureau of Policy and Strategy, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok. National Statistics Office (2007). Report of cigarette smoking and drinking behaviour in 2007. National Statistics Office, Bangkok. National Statistics Office (2009). The 2009 socio-economic survey of Thailand. National Statistics Office, Bangkok. Sarntisart, I (2011). Tax policies on tobacco products in Thailand: The way forward. World Health Organization, New Delhi. Sarntisart, I, S Supakankunti, M Teerachaisakul, K Chuensukkasemkul and N Kaluntakaphan (2003). An economic analysis of tobacco control in Thailand, Vol. 15. The World Bank, Bangkok. Sarntisart, I and PG Warr (1993). Estimation of consumer demand system. Su, S and S Yen (2000). A censored system of cigarette and alcohol consumption. Applied Eco- nomics, 32, 729–737. Tansel, A (1993). Cigarette demand, health scares and education in Turkey. Applied Economics, 25, 521–529. Thailand Tobacco Monopoly (2009). Annual report 2009. Thailand Tobacco Monopoly, Bangkok. Tobacco Control Research and Knowledge Management Centre (2008). Thailand tobacco control country profile. Mahidol University, Bangkok. Tungthangthum, S (1997). The political economy of tobacco products and optimal cigarette taxa- tion: The case of Thailand. Doctor of Philosophy in Economics, University of Hawaii. The Effects of Tax Changes on Tobacco Consumption in Thailand 1550084-17 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.
  18. 18. Visaruthvong, C (2007). Excise Tax on Cigarette to Control Cigarette Consumption. 1st Edition. Bangkok: Charoendee Printing. Visaruthvong, C (2010). Thailand tobacco tax report card: Southeast asia tobacco control Alliance, Bangkok. White, JS and H Ross (2015). Smokers’ strategic responses to sin taxes: Evidence from panel data in Thailand. Health Economics, 24, 127–141. Wooldridge, J (2006). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 3rd Edition. US: Thomson South-Western. World Health Organization (2010). WHO tehnical manual on tobacco tax administration. World Health Organization, Geneva. World Health Organization (2012). WHO global report mortality attributable to tobacco. World Health Organization, Geneva. World Health Organization (2013). WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2011. Available at: http://www.who.org (accessed 31 May 2014). World Health Organization (2014). Tobacco fact sheets. Available at: http://www.who.int (accessed 31 May 2014). Yen, ST (2005a). A Multivariate sample-selection model: Estimating cigarette and alcohol demand with zero observations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(2), 453–466. Yen, ST (2005b). Zero observations and gender differences in cigarette consumption. Applied Economics, 37(16), 1839–1849. Zhao, X and MN Harris (2004). Demand for marijuana alcohol and tobacco participation, levels of consumption and cross-equation correlations. The Economic Record, 80(251), 394–410. The Singapore Economic Review 1550084-18 SingaporeEcon.Rev.Downloadedfromwww.worldscientific.com byMrPichaiChonviharnpanon09/09/15.Forpersonaluseonly.