Optimal policy design for the sugar tax
Authors: Kelly Geyskens, Alexander Grigoriev, Niels Holtrop, Anastasia Nedelko
Abstract
Healthy nutrition promotions and regulations have long been regarded as a tool for increasing social welfare. One of the avenues taken in the past decade is sugar consumption regulation by introducing a sugar tax. Such a tax increases the price of extensive sugar containment in products such as soft drinks. In this article we consider a typical problem of optimal regulatory policy design, where the task is to determine the sugar tax rate maximizing the social welfare. We model the problem as a sequential game represented by the three-level mathematical program. On the upper level, the government decides upon the tax rate. On the middle level, producers decide on the product pricing. On the lower level, consumers decide upon their preferences towards the products. While the general problem is computationally intractable, the problem with a few product types is polynomially solvable, even for an arbitrary number of heterogeneous consumers. This paper presents a simple, intuitive and easily implementable framework for computing optimal sugar tax in a market with a few products. This resembles the reality as the soft drinks, for instance, are typically categorized in either regular or no-sugar drinks, e.g. Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola Zero. We illustrate the algorithm using an example based on the real data and draw conclusions for a specific local market.
The papers around it, by date and closeness
Higher is closer to this paper; left is older. Lines join papers close to each other: groups of lines are sub-topics. Select a point to see why it is there. Back to the summary of this paper
Papers around this one
Ranked by how close their title and abstract are to this paper’s. Select some to read them together.
Closest papers
-
Gacha Game: When Prospect Theory Meets Optimal PricingTan Gan · 2022 · Theoretical Economics · AI summary available
Abstract
I study the optimal pricing process for selling a unit good to a buyer with prospect theory preferences. In the presence of probability weighting, the buyer is dynamically inconsistent and can be either sophisticated or naive about her own inconsistency. If the buyer is naive, the uniquely optimal mechanism is to sell a ``loot box'' that delivers the good with some constant probability in each period. In contrast, if the buyer is sophisticated, the uniquely optimal mechanism introduces worst-case insurance: after successive failures in obtaining the good from all previous loot boxes, the buyer can purchase the good at full price.
-
Optimal Procurement Design: A Reduced Form ApproachKun Zhang · 2025 · Theoretical Economics · AI summary available
Abstract
Standard procurement models assume that the buyer knows the quality of the good at the time of procurement; however, in many settings, the quality is learned only long after the transaction. We study procurement problems in which the buyer's valuation of the supplied good depends directly on its quality, which is unverifiable and unobservable to the buyer. For a broad class of procurement problems, we identify procurement mechanisms maximizing any weighted average of the buyer's expected payoff and social surplus. The optimal mechanism can be implemented by an auction that restricts sellers to submit bids within specific intervals.
-
The Relationship between Consumer Theories with and without Utility MaximizationYuhki Hosoya · 2024 · Theoretical Economics · AI summary available
Abstract
To study the assumption that the utility maximization hypothesis implicitly adds to consumer theory, we consider a mathematical representation of pre-marginal revolution consumer theory based on subjective exchange ratios. We introduce two axioms on subjective exchange ratio, and show that both axioms hold if and only if consumer behavior is consistent with the utility maximization hypothesis. Moreover, we express the process for a consumer to find the transaction stopping point in terms of differential equations, and prove that the conditions for its stability are equal to the two axioms introduced in the above argument. Therefore, the consumer can find his/her transaction stopping point if…
-
Designing binary social decisionsKirneva Margarita, Núñez Matías · 2023 · Theoretical Economics · AI summary available
Abstract
We design a mechanism, Majority voting with random checks, that fully implements the majority rule for binary social decisions. After a simultaneous vote over the two options, the winner must be confirmed by at least one agent from a random sample of agents voting sequentially. The mechanism incentivizes agents to act truthfully as a lottery is held if no agent confirms the outcome. Our mechanism also reduces by almost half the number of stages required for implementation. Furthermore, we extend our results to incomplete information and abstention and introduce additional implementation mechanisms based on the concept of network formation
-
Wealth Redistribution and Mutual Aid: Comparison using Equivalent/Nonequivalent Exchange Models of EconophysicsTakeshi Kato · 2022 · Entropy 2023, 25(2), 224 · AI summary available
Abstract
Given the wealth inequality worldwide, there is an urgent need to identify the mode of wealth exchange through which it arises. To address the research gap regarding models that combine equivalent exchange and redistribution, this study compares an equivalent market exchange with redistribution based on power centers and a nonequivalent exchange with mutual aid using the Polanyi, Graeber, and Karatani modes of exchange. Two new exchange models based on multi-agent interactions are reconstructed following an econophysics approach for evaluating the Gini index (inequality) and total exchange (economic flow). Exchange simulations indicate that the evaluation parameter of the total exchange divi…
-
From Doubt to Devotion: Trials and Learning-Based PricingTan Gan, Nicholas Wu · 2023 · Theoretical Economics · AI summary available
Abstract
An informed seller designs a dynamic mechanism to sell an experience good. The seller has partial information about the product match, which affects the buyer's private consumption experience. We characterize equilibrium mechanisms of this dynamic informed principal problem. The belief gap between the informed seller and the uninformed buyer, coupled with the buyer's learning, gives rise to mechanisms that provide the skeptical buyer with limited access to the product and an option to upgrade if the buyer is swayed by a good experience. Depending on the seller's screening technology, this takes the form of free/discounted trials or tiered pricing, which are prevalent in digital markets. In c…
-
Platform-Mediated CompetitionQuitzé Valenzuela-Stookey · 2020 · Theoretical Economics · AI summary available
Abstract
Cross-group externalities and network effects in two-sided platform markets shape market structure and competition policy, and are the subject of extensive study. Less understood are the within-group externalities that arise when the platform designs many-to-many matchings: the value to agent $i$ of matching with agent $j$ may depend on the set of agents with which $j$ is matched. These effects are present in a wide range of settings in which firms compete for individuals' custom or attention. I characterize platform-optimal matchings in a general model of many-to-many matching with within-group externalities. I prove a set of comparative statics results for optimal matchings, and show how t…
-
Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, and WeylMichael H. Freedman · 2022 · Theoretical Economics · Not summarized yet
Abstract
The paper describes a funding mechanism called Quadratic Finance (QF) and deploys a bit of calculus to show that within a very clean and simple linear model QF maximizes social utility. They differentiate the social utility function. The mathematical content of this note is that by taking one further derivative, one may also deduce that QF is the unique solution.
Go further
How are these papers found?
We compare the title and abstract of this paper with those of every paper summarized on this site, and with the papers Semantic Scholar recommends, those it cites and those citing it (for a much-cited paper, its most recent citations and, from OpenAlex, the most cited ones). Among the prior work and the follow-ups, the papers that use each other in depth, a method it uses and the much-cited follow-ups come a little higher. The levels (very close, close, related) come from the similarity of the texts, not from a judgment of quality; * marks a paper without an abstract, compared by its title. The sentence under a paper is written by an AI from the two abstracts: check it in the papers. A paper marked not relevant by three readers leaves the list.
For now only among the papers summarized on this site: search again to add the prior work, the follow-ups and Semantic Scholar’s recommendations.