Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax in a Small Market
A Maltese health ministry is consulting on a €0.40 per litre excise duty on sugar-sweetened beverages. The domestic market currently sells 12 million litres a year at an average retail price of €1.50 per litre. An econometric study commissioned by the ministry estimates own-price elasticity of demand at −1.4 and price elasticity of supply at 0.8 over the relevant range. Producers warn that the tax will close two small bottling plants employing 45 people and that consumers will switch to untaxed juices. Public health officials counter that consumption must fall by at least 15% to produce measurable health benefits. The finance ministry wants the tax to raise at least €4 million a year. Retailers argue that a narrower tax on added sugar, rather than on volume, would be fairer. The consultation closes in six weeks.
1. Using the elasticities, calculate the likely fall in quantity demanded and the division of the €0.40 tax between consumers and producers. Would the tax meet the health ministry's 15% consumption-reduction target?
Read the worked answer
Tax incidence formula: consumer share = Es/(Es+|Ed|) = 0.8/(0.8+1.4) = 0.364. Consumer price rise = 0.364 × €0.40 = €0.145. Producer share = €0.255. The consumer price rises from €1.50 to about €1.645, or 9.7%. Using PED, quantity falls by 1.4 × 9.7% ≈ 13.6%, from 12 million to about 10.37 million litres. That is below the 15% health target. Tax revenue ≈ 10.37 million × €0.40 = €4.15 million, so it meets the €4 million revenue target on these estimates. Caveats: the elasticities are estimates; consumers may switch to untaxed juices, reducing both revenue and the health gain; producers may absorb more if supply is more elastic than assumed. The tax is therefore a revenue success but a modest health instrument.
2. Evaluate whether the government should impose the €0.40 volumetric tax, a narrower tax on added sugar, or no tax. Refer to externalities, equity and the minister's revenue target.
Read the worked answer
Sugar consumption creates a negative externality: external health costs are not reflected in the price, so a corrective tax can improve welfare. A volumetric tax is cheap to administer and broad, but it taxes all sugar drinks equally, is regressive because low-income households spend a larger budget share on food and drink, and may cause job losses in bottling. It does not target added sugar content. A sugar-content tax better targets the externality, encourages reformulation, and can be graduated to reduce regressivity, but it is harder to administer and may raise less revenue. No tax leaves external costs unpriced. Given the 15% target, a €0.40 volumetric tax alone likely fails; combine a sugar-content tax with public information, reformulation incentives, and transitional support for affected workers. Earmark part of the revenue for child health programmes to build acceptance. If the finance ministry insists on €4 million, a higher rate or broader base is needed, but the risk of substitution to untaxed juices must be monitored.