Price, Tax and Income Elasticity Effects on Smoking Intensities Among Urban Cigarette Smokers in Kenya: Double-Hurdle Approach

Abstract

Background: Rationally, tobacco use is enemy number one among risk factors for noncommunicable diseases. It is a widely and broadly established cause of cancer and also responsible for cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. It has been estimated that there are >1.3 billion smokers worldwide, with ∼80% residing in low- and middle-income countries. More than 10% of all deaths resulting from noncommunicable diseases including cancer, cardiovascular, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes are related to tobacco and most of these occur in these low- and middle-income countries. In Kenya, >2.5 million of the population are adult smokers. Aim: Objectively, this abstract analyzed the price, tax and income elasticity effects on smoking intensities among the urban cigarette smokers for effective tobacco control in Kenya. Methods: The data used was sourced form the household and individual survey questionnaires from the Kenya Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2014. Double-hurdle model was used where the first part of the technique was to distinguish between the urban smokers and urban nonsmokers. The second part was to determine the smoking intensities among those who smoke and also to analyze the effect of price, tax and income elasticity on the individual consumption. Results: The study revealed that price of cigarette had a reducing (β = −2.2343) and very significant (P < 0.001) elastic effect on smoking intensities among urban smokers while disposable income had a significant (P < 0.010) but positive (β = −0.0366) inelastic effect on smoking levels of the urban cigarette smokers. Particularly, tax on cigarette has also been depicted to have a significant (P < 0.001) yet positive and elastic (β = 1.7044) effect on smoking intensities on the urban cigarette smokers. Time spent in education has a significant (P < 0.001) and negative (β = −3.2240) elastic effect on the smoking intensities of urban smokers. Notably, those who are married (β = −0.6320, P < 0.001) and employed (β = −0.5498, P < 0.010) have significant and negative though inelastic effect on their smoking intensities as compared with the unmarried and unemployed. Conclusion: Summarily, this implies that urban smokers have more income where the proportion spent on smoking is very small. Also, since tax is a function of income, it thus calls for the need to increase the rate of excise tax on cigarette so as to discourage consumption of cigarettes among the urban smokers and thus ultimately realizing and sustaining the health policy goals of reducing and averting the cancer risk factors. Furthermore, continuous use of cost-effective sensitization methods to create awareness and educate people on economic, social and health effects and impacts of tobacco use.