SHORT REPORT
Social phenomena following the tobacco tax increase in South Korea: Lessons and policy implications
Eun W. Nam 2  
,  
Hye L. Lee 3
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Gerontal Health and Welfare, Pai Chai University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University, Wonju, Republic of Korea
3
Korea Human Resource Development Institute for Health and Welfare, Osong Health Technology Administration Complex, Cheongju-si, Republic of Korea
4
Korea Health Promotion Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Eun W. Nam   

Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University, Wonju, Republic of Korea, 1, Yonseidae-gil, Wonju-si, Gangwon-do, 26493 Wonju, Republic of Korea
Publish date: 2018-05-30
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(May):24
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
This paper reviews the trial and error occurring before an increase in cigarette prices and the subsequent effects of this in South Korea. In addition, we introduce the social phenomena that occur as a result of an increase in tobacco tax, and propose effective strategies and principles that need to be taken into account before increasing cigarette prices.

Material and Methods:
We compared changes to smoking rates before and after the increase in cigarette prices. To investigate the changes that occurred before South Korea’s increase in tobacco tax, we first analysed the state of cigarette consumption and then the change in smoking rates.

Results:
The increase in cigarette prices caused an immediate backlash from smokers, particularly low-income groups and those claiming tax inequality. In particular, the sales of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) increased dramatically and the lower price marketing of tobacco companies led to short-term market share increases. As expected, smoking rates in South Korea decreased. However, because the price increase was not sufficient to encourage widespread smoking cessation, the decrease in smoking rates was not significant.

Conclusions:
Because the primary objective of the cigarette pricing policy was not designed to promote public health, by reducing smoking rates, it received public criticism. To avoid public criticism, the government must emphasize and convince the public that the primary objective of increasing cigarette prices is to protect public health through a decline in smoking rates. Ideally, health authorities should play a leading role in formulating tobacco tax policy.

 
REFERENCES (16)
1.
World Health Organization. WHO framework convention on tobacco control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
 
2.
World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2008: the MPOWER package. Published, 2008. Accessed July 14, 2016.
 
3.
Ng M, Freeman MK, Fleming TD, Robinson M, Dwyer-Lindgren L, Thomson B, et al. Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, 1980-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(2):183-192. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.284692
 
4.
The National Law Information Center. Enforcement Decree of the National Health Promotion Act. http://www.law.go.kr/eng/engLs.... Accessed July 14, 2016.
 
5.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Health Organization. Health at a Glance: Asia/Pacific 2014. OECD Publishing; 2015.
 
6.
Chaloupka FJ, Yurekli A, Fong GT. Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy. Tobacco Control. 2012;21(2):172-180. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050417
 
7.
World Health Organization/Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Price and tax policies (in relation to Article 6 of the Convention). In: Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control WHO. 2010.
 
8.
Ajzen I, Brown TC, Carvajal F. Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004;30(9):1108-1121. doi:10.1177/0146167204264079
 
9.
Herald TK. Foreign cigarette brands outperform. KT&G; 2015.
 
10.
World Health Organization. 2012 Global progress report on implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. WHO; 2012.
 
11.
World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2015: Raising taxes on tobacco. 2015.
 
12.
Major results/Health behavior. https://knhanes.cdc.go.kr/knha.... Accessed July 14, 2016.
 
13.
Townsend J, Roderick P, Cooper J. Cigarette smoking by socioeconomic group, sex, and age: effects of price, income, and health publicity. BMJ. 1994;309(6959):923-927. doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6959.923
 
14.
Liang L, Chaloupka FJ. Differential effects of cigarette price on youth smoking intensity. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002;4(1):109-114. doi:10.1080/14622200110103188
 
15.
Krasovsky K. Sharp changes in tobacco products affordability and the dynamics of smoking prevalence in various social and income groups in Ukraine in 2008-2012. Tob. induc. dis. 2013;11(1):21. doi:10.1186/1617-9625-11-21
 
16.
University W. Tobacco Price and Taxation: ITC Cross-Country Comparison Report. In: ITC Project. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo; 2014.
 
eISSN:1617-9625