Economic Environment Interventions

Our work on economic environment interventions:

At the BHRU, we study interventions that can influence prices or income and hence change the financial advantages or disadvantages people face when making choices relating to tobacco, alcohol, healthier or less healthy foods, and physical activity.

These interventions include the use of taxes, subsidies or income transfers, as well as retail practices such as sales promotions.

 

Why is this important?

Like physical environment interventions, these interventions have the potential to influence many people at once because they involve changing features of the economic environment (namely prices and income) that most people are exposed to.

Click on the images below to find out more about the work we are doing in this area:

 

Key Studies:

    • Why don’t people like government increasing prices on unhealthy items?

      Stack of coins isolated on the background.Price interventions can be one of the most effective ways of changing behavior – particularly for reducing consumption of tobacco and alcohol – but public support for these interventions is usually low.

      In this focus group study, three themes emerged for the low acceptability of price increases to reduce consumption of alcohol and fast foods:

      1. Doubting that it works to reduce consumption
      2. Believing government raises prices to generate revenue rather than protect health
      3. Not trusting the government.

      Highlighting evidence of intervention effectiveness might increase the acceptability of price interventions.

      Public attitudes towards pricing policies to change health-related behaviours: a UK focus group study. Somerville, Marteau, Kinmonth & Cohn, 2015.

      Access full text.

       

    • What is the evidence for food taxes and subsidies changing diets?

      Pound_coinsWe conducted a systematic scoping review of the evidence for the effects of interventions that change prices or income in ways that promote healthier diets or physical activity. The studies we found:

      • Focused on price promotions, taxes, supply-side subsidies and transfer payments (no studies were found on direct pricing legislation (e.g. minimum unit pricing)).
      • Largely focused on diet, with little evidence for interventions targeting physical activity.

       

      Price is a critical element of the environment shaping behaviour, but our results suggest the evidence for using economic instruments to promote dietary and physical activity is less compelling and more complex than some claim.

      Economic Instruments for Population Diet and Physical Activity Behaviour Change: A Systematic Scoping Review. Shemilt, Hollands, Marteau, Nakamura, Jebb, Kelly, Suhrcke & Ogilvie. 2013.

      Access full text

      Use and cumulation of evidence from modelling studies to inform policy on food taxes and subsidies: biting off more than we can chew? Shemilt, Marteau, Smith & Ogilvie, 2013

      Access full text

       

    • How acceptable are pricing policies for changing behaviour?

      How acceptable people find different interventions to reduce alcohol consumption varies depending on the type of intervention and its effectiveness.

      While our study found differences in acceptability depending on intervention type (affecting price, availability or advertising), acceptability increased when information on effectiveness was given.

      Acceptability increased most for minimum unit pricing, which had greater effectiveness in terms of expected outcomes compared with the other intervention types.

      Highlighting the effectiveness of interventions could increase their acceptability.

      Public acceptability of population-level interventions to reduce alcohol consumption: A discrete choice experiment. Pechey, Burge, Mentzakis, Suhrcke & Marteau. 2014.

      Access full text.

       

    • Are more deprived households likely to buy supermarket promotions?

      iStock_000016194323_MediumIn our study which looked at price promotions in stores, we found that people were more likely to purchase less-healthy food items on promotion, rather than healthier items, and that:

      • less deprived households were more likely to buy foods on promotion than more deprived households.

       

      This evidence suggests that whilst policies targeting promotions on less healthy foods might help people to have healthier shopping baskets, they would have little effect on reducing health inequalities caused by deprivation.

      Price promotions on healthier vs. less healthy foods: a hierarchical regression analysis of the impact on sales and social patterning of responses to promotions in Great Britain. Nakamura, Suhrcke, Jebb, Pechey, Almiron-Roig, Marteau, 2015.

      Access full text

       

     Publications related to economic environment interventions:

    2015

    2014

    2013