Articles that empirically assess non-tax price policies
| Year | First author | Location | Outcome measure | Price-related article findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum price laws (MPLs) | ||||
| 2005 | Feighery11 | USA | Cigarette prices | Prices in states with MPLs were not significantly lower than prices in states without, but were higher in NY, the one MPL state that prohibited special price promotions |
| 2012 | Tynan83 | USA | Cigarette prices | Prices were lower in states with MPLs than in states without them. This finding was consistent in the grocery channel (46 cents difference), drug channel (29 cents difference) and convenience stores (13 cents difference) |
| Price promotion restrictions | ||||
| 2006 | Harris73 | UK, USA, Canada, Australia | Awareness of promotions (2002 and 2003) | Awareness of special price promotions declined from 62% to 46% in the UK in the year following a ban on special price promotions. This change was greater than changes occurring during the same time period in three countries that did not implement a ban |
| 2008 | Yong74 | Malaysia, Thailand | Awareness of promotions | In two countries that have implemented similar marketing bans, 21.6% of respondents in the country that does not enforce the ban (Malaysia) reported seeing special price offers, compared to only 2.5% of smokers in the country that does enforce the ban (Thailand) |
| 2009 | Feighery12 | USA | Brand-specific price and promotions in stores | There were no differences in prices or promotions for Phillip Morris USA cigarette brands in stores where promotions were suspended by the company compared to stores that had not been sanctioned |
| 2011 | Kasza68 | UK, USA, Canada, Australia | Awareness of promotions (2002 and 2008) | Awareness of price promotions declined from 62% to 25% in the UK following the implementation on a ban on special price promotions. This change was greater than changes occurring during the same time period in three countries that did not implement a ban |
NY, New York.