Economic and environmental effects of reduction in smoking prevalence in Tanzania

• Published in: Tobacco control Vol. 29; no. 1; pp. 24 - 28
• Main Authors: Jha, Veena, Narayanan, Badri G, Wadhwa, Deepika, Tesche, Jean
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 01.01.2020; BMJ Publishing Group
• Subjects: Economic analysis; Economic conditions; Economic development; Economic impact; Economics; Employment; Environment models; Environmental effects; Equilibrium; Exports; GDP; Greenhouse gases; Gross Domestic Product; Input output; International trade; Land use; Lower bounds; Macroeconomics; Manufacturing; Metals; Original Research; Prices; Reduction; Smoking; Tax revenues; Taxation; Taxes; Textiles; Tobacco; Vegetable oils; Wood; Tanzania; economics; public policy; tobacco industry
• ISSN: 0964-4563; 1468-3318
• DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054635

BackgroundIn Tanzania, strong tobacco control measures that would lead to a reduction in prevalence (consumption) have so far not been implemented due to concern about possible economic effects on gross domestic product and employment. The aim of this study is to analyse the economic effects of reducing tobacco consumption in Tanzania.MethodsThe study uses computable general equilibrium (CGE) modelling to arrive at the effects of decreasing tobacco prevalence. A full-fledged global CGE model was developed, including comprehensive details on tobacco and tobacco products/sectors using the Global Trade Analysis Program-Environment model and database.ResultsThe results indicate that a 30% reduction in prevalence could lead to employment losses of about 20.8% in tobacco and 7.8% in the tobacco products sector. However, when compensated by increases in other sectors the overall decline in employment is only 0.5%. The decline in the economy as a whole is negligible at −0.3%.ConclusionInitially, some assistance from the Tanzanian government may be needed for the displaced workers from the tobacco sector as a result of the decline in smoking prevalence. However, these results should be taken as a lower bound since the economic burden of diseases caused by tobacco may be far higher than the sectoral losses. The results do not include the health benefits of lower smoking prevalence. In addition, the revenues from higher taxes, as part of measures to decrease prevalence, would provide more fiscal space that can be used to finance assistance for displaced tobacco farmers and workers.