The impact of broad-based vs targeted taxation on youth alcohol consumption in Lebanon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to model youth's off-premise alcohol demand and forecasts ethanol intake responsiveness to alcohol taxes. Using stated preference alcohol purchase data from a survey of 1024 university students in Lebanon, we derive price elasticities that we use to forecast the effects of two excise tax scenarios on overall ethanol intake. The first scenario imposes a broad-based 20% tax on all types of alcoholic beverages, and the second scenario imposes a targeted 20% tax only on the high ethanol content, while exempting the lower ethanol beverages. Overall, targeted taxes are found to achieve a reduction in ethanol intake that is nearly three times that achieved by broad taxes (15.7% vs 5.3%). For 'past-month binge drinkers', targeted taxes would decrease alcohol intake by 16.3%, while broad taxes increase it by 3.3%. Finally, ethanol intake among participants who prefer low ethanol content would decrease under targeted taxes by more than five times as much as under broad taxes. For 'high-ethanol drinkers', targeted taxes decrease alcohol intake by an even larger proportion than for 'low-ethanol drinkers' (19.0% vs 15.6%), while broad taxes increase their ethanol intake by ∼16.0%. This study contributes evidence that taxation policy substantially reduces alcohol consumption and that alcohol consumption patterns should be accounted for when designing taxes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".