This assignment examines the relationship between a sugar tax and the demand for sugary drinks. It discusses how an increase in price due to taxation influences the quantity demanded, focusing on the concept of price elasticity. The analysis delves into relevant studies and research findings to illustrate the potential effects of such a policy.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head: ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE Economic Principle Name of the student Name of the University Author note
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
2ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE Question 1: i) When a tax is levied, then tax incidence is the term that aids to divide the tax burden between the seller and the buyer (Tremblay and Tremblay 2016). Depending upon the elasticity of demand and supply, tax incidence is determined. If the elasticity of supply is higher than the elasticity of the demand, then tax burden lies on the buyers and if the elasticity of demand is higher, then the tax burden lies on the buyer (Stiglitz and Rosengard 2015). ii) Tax on sugary drinks is in practice for the long time, which is aimed to reduce the consumption propensity of the sugary drinks (Briggs 2016). Taxation on the sugary drinks can be acknowledged as the Pigovian tax, which is a type of taxation applied on the market activities that cause externalities. In the case of sugary drinks, it causes negative externalities by enhancing the scope of diabetes. Thus, economic ideas of taxation on sugary drinks states that a tax on these products will enhance the market price of the sugary drinks leading to a fall in demand, which will lead the producer to produce socially optimised amount of sugary drinks (Silano and Agostoni 2017).
3ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE Government’srevenue of tax S0 D Q P Q P0 Q* P1 P* S1 E* E Deadweight loss Reduced social cost Question 2: i) Figure 1: Demand and supply of sugar sweetened drinks Source: (Created by Author) From figure 1, it can be seen that initial equilibrium was occurred at point E where the equilibrium level of output was Q and the equilibrium level of price was P0. Post taxation scenario can be perceived from the same figure 1 that states a shift of equilibrium from E to E*. During post taxation, equilibrium level of price is P*, which is higher than the initial equilibrium price of P1. Quantity demanded shifted from Q to Q* owing to the taxation and it has caused a reduction in social cost of the sugary drinks, which has been highlighted by the red section of the figure 1. Once the tax is levied, it caused a revenue generation for the government, represented by the yellow section of the figure 1. Though the generation of tax is good, however there will be
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE E* E P P* Market supply curve M1 P Q*Q M0 sum amount of deadweight loss, which has been highlighted by the green section in the diagram represented above (Lalet al.2017). ii) Figure 2: Sugar supply and demand and taxation effect Source: (Created by Author) Figure 2 shows the supply and demand condition of the Australian sugar market. Initial equilibrium occurs at point E, where the equilibrium price was P and the equilibrium level of quantity produced is Q. If a sugar tax were levied on the sugar market of Australia, then it would certainly alter the existing market equilibrium. Post taxation scenario can be seen from the figure 2, where the market demand curve shifts M0to M1leading a shift in equilibrium condition. New equilibrium has occurred at E*, where the equilibrium price is P* and the quantity produced is
5ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE P0 P1 P0 P1 Ps Qs PC Qc M0 M1 S0S0 Q1Q0Q0Q1 M0 M1 Section 1Section 2 P2 Q*. P* is higher than the initial equilibrium price P and this rise in price has caused the reduction in the demand of the sugar leading to a reduction in production of the sugary drinks. iii) Figure 3: impact of sugary drink tax on the non-sweetened drinks Source: (Created by Author) Figure 3 displays that if a tax on sugary drinks is applied, then it will alter the existing market equilibrium leading to a rise in equilibrium price from P1 to P2. This rise in price originates due to the change in demand, which has been highlighted by the shift in demand curve from M0to M1. This rise in price will reduce the demand of the sweetened drinks and it will lead to a rise in demand of the non-sugary drinks that can be perceived from the section 2 of the
6ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE figure 3. Owing to the fact that sugar and non-sugary sweetened drinks are substitute, customers will demand more of non-sugary drinks. This rise in demand will increase the price from P0to P1. Question 3: i) If a change in price leads to a large alteration in the quantity demanded, then it is said that the good is responsive to the changes of price. Depending upon the magnitude of change of demand due to change in price, price elasticity of demand is calculated (Olmsteadet al.2015). A positive elasticity of demand means a rise in demand due to a rise in price and the negative elasticity of demand demonstrates that if the price rises, then the quantity demanded will fall (Sabatelli 2016). Price elasticity of demand for sugar-sweetened beverages is -0.9 means a 10% rise in price of sugary beverages will lead to a reduction of demand of these products by 9%. This elasticity of demand for the sugary beverages demonstrates that if the price of sugary beverages rises, then consumers will shift to the close substitute non-sugary drinks. Thus, if the government use sugary drink tax, then it will be beneficial to curtail the demand of sugary drinks and shifting the preference to non-sugary drinks like milk, fruit juice etc. ii) Own price elasticity is a measurement that demonstrates the relationship between the quantity demanded and the change in price (Atamanet al.2016). Own price elasticity measures thechangeinquantitydemandedoriginatedfromthepercentagechangeinprice (Cobe.boisestate.edu, 2018). If the change of quantity demanded is high due to a small change of price, then the good is said to be more elastic and if there is no change in demand for the change of price, then the good is non-elastic in nature (Menget al.2014). Sugar is necessary good but sugary drinks are not necessary goods, thus a change in price can certainly alter the quantity
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
7ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE demanded making an elastic good (Schwartz 2017). Own price elasticity of sugary drinks are much higher to the people who are children, teenagers and falls in the low-income group (Colcheroet al.2015). Thus if a sugary tax is imposed by the government, then it will increase the price of sugary beverages, leading to a reduction in quantity demanded.
8ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE Reference: Ataman, B., Pauwels, K., Srinivasan, S. and Vanhuele, M., 2016. Advertising’s Long-Term Impact on Brand Price Elasticity Across Brands and Categories. Briggs, A., 2016. Sugar tax could sweeten a market failure: Britain has announced a tax on sugary drinks. Countries should go further and target foods that have large carbon footprints, says Adam Briggs.Nature,531(7596), pp.551-552. Cobe.boisestate.edu.(2018).[online]Availableat: https://cobe.boisestate.edu/lreynol/WEB/PDF/Elasticity.pdf [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018]. Colchero, M.A., Salgado, J.C., Unar-Munguia, M., Hernandez-Avila, M. and Rivera-Dommarco, J.A., 2015. Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico.Economics & Human Biology,19, pp.129-137. Lal, A., Mantilla-Herrera, A.M., Veerman, L., Backholer, K., Sacks, G., Moodie, M., Siahpush, M., Carter, R. and Peeters, A., 2017. Modelled health benefits of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax acrossdifferentsocioeconomicgroupsinAustralia:Acost-effectivenessandequity analysis.PLoS medicine,14(6), p.e1002326. Meng, Y., Brennan, A., Purshouse, R., Hill-McManus, D., Angus, C., Holmes, J. and Meier, P.S., 2014. Estimation of own and cross price elasticities of alcohol demand in the UK—a pseudo-panel approach using the Living Costs and Food Survey 2001–2009.Journal of health economics,34, pp.96-103. Olmstead, T.A., Alessi, S.M., Kline, B., Pacula, R.L. and Petry, N.M., 2015. The price elasticity of demand for heroin: matched longitudinal and experimental evidence.Journal of health economics,41, pp.59-71.
9ECONOMIC PRINCIPLE Sabatelli, L., 2016. Relationship between the uncompensated price elasticity and the income elasticity of demand under conditions of additive preferences.PloS one,11(3), p.e0151390. Schwartz,M.B.,2017.movingbeyondthedebateoverrestrictingsugarydrinksinthe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Silano, M. and Agostoni, C., 2017. To tax or not to tax sugary drinks? This is the question. Stiglitz, J.E. and Rosengard, J.K., 2015.Economics of the Public Sector: Fourth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company. Tremblay, M.J. and Tremblay, V.J., 2016. Tax Incidence and Demand Convexity in Cournot, Bertrand, and Cournot–Bertrand Models.Public Finance Review, p.1091142116666671.