We reviewed all available research studies on the degree to which changing cigarette taxes, and thereby cigarette retail prices, affects the prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults. The effects presented in this meta-analysis reflect the effects of a 10% increase in cigarette taxes.

 

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured	Treatment age	Primary or secondary participant	No. of effect sizes	Treatment N	Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE)			Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
					ES	SE	Age	ES	p-value
Regular smoking Smoking tobacco on a regular basis.	0	Primary	21	6507706	-0.004	0.002	45	-0.004	0.001

Wasserman, J., Manning, W.G., Newhouse, J.P., & Winkler, J.D. (1991). The effects of excise taxes and regulations on cigarette smoking. Journal of Health Economics, 10(1), 43-64.

Callison, K., & Kaestner, R. (2014). Do higher tobacoo taxes reduce adult smoking? New evidence of the effect of recent cigarette tax increases on adult smoking. Economic Inquiry, 52(1), 155-172.

Cheng, K.-W., & Kenkely, D.S. (2010). U.S. cigarette demand: 1944-2004. Contributions to Economic Analysis and Policy, 10, 1.

DeCicca, P., & McLeod, L. (2008). Cigarette taxes and older adult smoking: evidence from recent large tax increases. Journal of Health Economics, 27(4), 918-29.

DeCicca, P., Kenkel, D.S., & Mathios, A.D. (2008). Cigarette taxes and the transition from youth to adult smoking: Smoking initiation, cessation, and participation. Journal of Health Economics, 27, 904-917.

Evans, W.N., Ringel, J.S., & Stech, D. (1999). Tobacco taxes and public policy to discourage smoking. Tax Policy and the Economy, 13, 1-56.

Farrelly, M.C., & Engelen, M. (2008). Cigarette prices, smoking, and the poor, revisited. American Journal of Public Health, 98(4), 582-3.

Farrelly, M.C., Bray, J.W., Pechacek, T., & Woollery, T. (2001). Response by adults to increases in cigarette prices by sociodemographic characteristics. Southern Economic Journal, 68(1), 156-165.

Franks, P., Jerant, A.F., Leigh, J.P., Lee, D., Chiem, A., Lewis, I., & Lee, S. (2007). Cigarette prices, smoking, and the poor: implications of recent trends. American Journal of Public Health, 97(10), 1873-7.

Franz, G.A. (2008). Price effects on the smoking behaviour of adult age groups. Public Health, 122(12), 1343-8.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1998). Response to increases in cigarette prices by race/ethnicity, income, and age groups--United States, 1976-1993. JAMA, 280(23), 1979-1981.

Shang, C. (2012). The robustness of price elasticity estimates: A revisit of various methodologies used to estimate demand for cigarettes. University of Illinois at Chicago.

Sheu, M.L., Hu, T.W., Keeler, T.E., Ong, M., & Sung, H.Y. (2004). The effect of a major cigarette price change on smoking behavior in california: a zero-inflated negative binomial model. Health Economics, 13(8), 781-91.

Sloan, F.A., & Trogdon, J.G. (2004). The impact of the Master Settlement Agreement on cigarette consumption. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(4), 843-55.

Stehr, M. (2007). The effect of cigarette taxes on smoking among men and women. Health Economics, 16(12), 1333-1343.

Tauras, J.A. (2004). Public policy and some-day smoking among adults. Journal of Applied Econoimcs, 7(1), 137-162.

Tauras, J.A., Chaloupka, F.J., & National Bureau of Economic Research. (1999). Price, clean indoor air laws, and cigarette smoking: Evidence from longitudinal data for young adults. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Tauras, J.A. (2006). Smoke-free air laws, cigarette prices, and adult cigarette demand. Economic Inquiry, 44,(2), 333-342.

110 FIFTH AVENUE SE, SUITE 214
P O BOX 40999
OLYMPIA, WA 98501