MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929600590 · doi:10.18332/tpc/105306

Results of tobacco taxation policy in Ukraine in 2016-2018

2019· article· en· W2929600590 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Konstantin Krasovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueTobacco Prevention & Cessation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBusiness and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersThird Health ProgrammeUniversity of WaterlooCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEuropean Commission
KeywordsBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Specific excise rates for tobacco products increased in Ukraine by 40% in 2016, 40% in 2017 and 29.8% in 2018. The aim of the research is to estimate the impact of these increases on tobacco prices, consumption, and revenue. Methods Monthly data published by Ukrainian official bodies were analyzed. Results In 2016, the average price increased by 7% while inflation was 14%. In 2017 and 2018, the average price increased by 35% and 28% with inflation of 14% and 10%. Cigarette sales increased from 73 billion sticks in 2015 to 76 billion in 2016 but then decreased to 67 billion in 2017 and 55 billion cigarettes in 2018. Tobacco excise revenue increased in 2016 by 59%: from 22 billion to 33 billion UAH, while in 2017, it increased to 40 billion UAH (by 20%) and in 2018 – to 43 billion UAH (by 8%). In 2018, the revenue was 15 billion and 28 billion UAH in January-June and July-December respectively. Conclusions In three years excise increased by 154% and it caused an increase in price by 84%, reduction in sales by 25% and an increase in revenue by 94%. So, in long term, tobacco excise increase did have the expected impact. However, in short term, the impact can vary as the tobacco industry uses sophisticated tactics to distort the results of tobacco taxation: price wars and price over-shifting, forestalling and others. Such tactics should be taken into account when forecasting the possible impacts of proposed tax increases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTobacco Prevention & CessationSame topicBusiness and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207