世界发展银行-Business,-Employment,-and-Productivity-Impacts-of-Sugar-Sweetened-Beverages-Taxes_6页_250kb

Business, Employment, and Productivity Impacts of SSB Taxes

Core Content

This document provides an analysis of the economic impacts of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes, focusing on business, employment, productivity, and government revenue. It challenges the common industry-sponsored narrative that SSB taxes harm businesses, lead to job losses, and negatively affect economic growth. Instead, it highlights the net positive economic effects observed in independent studies and modeling efforts.

Key Findings

Impact on Business

• Consumer Substitution: SSB taxes lead to reduced demand for SSBs, which is partially offset by increased demand for other packaged beverages, such as diet drinks and bottled water. This is due to the fact that many SSB producers also manufacture these alternative products.
• Product Reformulation: Companies often reformulate their products to reduce sugar content, which mitigates the negative impact on sales and helps maintain market share. In the UK, the Soft Drinks Industry Levy led to a significant drop in high-sugar SSBs, with only a small decline in overall product sales.
• Sectoral Effects: The impact on other sectors such as sugar production, transport, and services is generally minimal or neutral. In Brazil, a 10% tax increase on SSBs led to a 4% contraction in the SSB sector and a 0.02% decline in total economic output.

Impact on Employment

• No Job Losses Observed: Studies from Mexico and Philadelphia show no significant job losses in the beverage or retail sectors following the introduction of SSB taxes.
• Employment Gains: In Berkeley, California, the food sector employment increased by 7%, and limited service restaurants saw a 19% increase in employment.
• Productivity Gains: Modeling suggests that SSB taxes can lead to job creation in other sectors due to reallocation of consumer spending and government spending on tax revenue. In Australia, a 20% SSB tax is predicted to result in a small net gain in employment.

Impact on Productivity

• Health Benefits: SSB taxes are linked to significant reductions in obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic diseases, which in turn reduce productivity losses due to illness and early death.
• Productivity Gains: Modeling indicates that SSB taxes can lead to substantial productivity gains. For example, a 20% tax in Australia is predicted to result in AU$751 million in productivity gains in the paid sector and AU$1172 million in the unpaid sector.
• Health-Adjusted Life Years (HALYs): SSB taxes are associated with a reduction in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), reflecting improved health outcomes and productivity.

Impact on Government Revenue

• Revenue Generation: Independent studies show that SSB taxes generate substantial government revenue. For instance, a 30 cents per litre tax in Indonesia is projected to generate USD 920 million in the first year and USD 27.3 billion over 25 years.
• Revenue Variability: Revenue can be affected by product reformulation. In the UK, the initial revenue forecast was significantly exceeded due to extensive reformulation, while in South Africa, the tax generated ZAR 2 billion in the first year, slightly exceeding initial projections.
• Fiscal Impact: SSB taxes can be used to fund public health initiatives and compensate for transitional costs in affected industries.

Main Arguments

• Industry-sponsored studies often present biased or incomplete data, suggesting negative economic impacts of SSB taxes, which are used to oppose such policies.
• Independent evaluations and modeling consistently show that SSB taxes have net positive economic impacts, including employment gains, productivity improvements, and increased government revenue.
• The reallocation of consumer spending to other goods and services, along with government spending on tax revenue, can offset potential job losses in the beverage industry.

Conclusion

SSB taxes do not lead to significant job losses or economic harm. Instead, they contribute to overall economic growth, improve public health, and increase government revenue, which can be reinvested into health and social programs. The evidence supports the implementation of SSB taxes as a viable public health and economic intervention.

References

• Balbinotto G and Cardoso L. Value in Health, 2016.
• Basu S, Vellakkal S, Agrawal S, et al. PLoS Med, 2014.
• Bleich SN and Vercammen KA. BMC Obesity, 2018.
• Carter HE, Schofield DJ, Shrestha R, Veerman L. PLoS ONE, 2019.
• Duckett S and Swerissen H. Grattan Institute, 2016.
• Fooks GJ, Williams S, Box G, Sacks G. Globalization and Health, 2019.
• Guerrero-López CM, Molina M, Colchero MZ. Preventive Medicine, 2017.
• Imamura F, O'Connor L, Ye Z, Mursu J, Hayashino Y, Bhupathiraju SN, Forouhi NG. British Medical Journal, 2015.
• de Koning L, Malik V, Kellogg M, Rimm E, Willett W, Hu F. Circulation, 2012.
• Lawman HG, Bleich SN, Yan J, LeVasseur MT, Mitra N, Roberto CA. PLoS ONE, 2019.
• Long, Michael W., et al. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2015.
• Malik VS, Pan A, Willett WC, Hu FB. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2013.
• Malik VS and Hu FB. Nutrients, 2019.
• Mueller N, Odegaard A, Anderson K, Yuan JM, Gross M, Koh WP, Pereira M. Cancer, Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 2010.
• Mounsey S, Veerman L, Jan S, Thow AM. Economics and Human Biology, 2020.
• Nomaguchi T, Cunich M, Zapata-Diomedi B, et al. Health Policy, 2017.
• Saxena A, Koon AD, Lagrada-Rombaua L, et al. Bull World Health Organ, 2019.
• Singh GM, Micha R, Khatibzadeh S, Lim S, Ezzati M, Mozaffarian D. Circulation, 2015.
• Stacey N, Mudara C, Ng SW. Social Science & Medicine, 2019.
• Te Morenga L, Mallard S, Mann J. BMJ, 2012.
• Te Morenga LA, Howatson A, Jones RM, Mann J. AJCN, 2014.
• Trumbo PR & Rivers CR. Nutr Rev., 2014.
• Scarborough P, Adhikari V, Harrington RA. PLoS Med, 2020.
• Silver L. City of Berkeley, Public Health Institute NCDHub, 2017.
• Vandevijvere S, Vanderlee L. Current Nutrition Reports, 2019.
• Veerman JL, Sacks G, Antonopoulos N, Martin J. PLoS ONE, 2016.
• Wilde P et al. American Journal of Public Health, 2019.
• WHO/National Institute for Food and Nutrition Science. Assessment of the impact of a public health product tax, 2015.
• Xi BY, Huang KH, Reilly S et al. British Journal of Nutrition, 2015.

End Notes

• SSBs include beverages with added caloric sweeteners.
• Sectors affected by SSB taxes include inputs, manufacturing, retail, and transport.
• Economic activity encompasses the production and consumption of goods and services.
• Low-calorie SSBs are those sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners.