» Articles » PMID: 21595921

'A Major Lobbying Effort to Change and Unify the Excise Structure in Six Central American Countries': How British American Tobacco Influenced Tax and Tariff Rates in the Central American Common Market

Overview
Journal Global Health
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2011 May 21
PMID 21595921
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) may respond to processes of regional trade integration both by acting politically to influence policy and by reorganising their own operations. The Central American Common Market (CACM) was reinvigorated in the 1990s, reflecting processes of regional trade liberalisation in Latin America and globally. This study aimed to ascertain how British American Tobacco (BAT), which dominated the markets of the CACM, sought to influence policy towards it by member country governments and how the CACM process impacted upon BAT's operations.

Methods: The study analysed internal tobacco industry documents released as a result of litigation in the US and available from the online Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/. Documents were retrieved by searching the BAT collection using key terms in an iterative process. Analysis was based on an interpretive approach involving a process of attempting to understand the meanings of individual documents and relating these to other documents in the set, identifying the central themes of documents and clusters of documents, contextualising the documentary data, and choosing representative material in order to present findings.

Results: Utilising its multinational character, BAT was able to act in a coordinated way across the member countries of the CACM to influence tariffs and taxes to its advantage. Documents demonstrate a high degree of access to governments and officials. The company conducted a coordinated, and largely successful, attempt to keep external tariff rates for cigarettes high and to reduce external tariffs for key inputs, whilst also influencing the harmonisation of excise taxes between countries. Protected by these high external tariffs, it reorganised its own operations to take advantage of regional economies of scale. In direct contradiction to arguments presented to CACM governments that affording the tobacco industry protection via high cigarette tariffs would safeguard employment, the company's regional reorganisation involved the loss of hundreds of jobs.

Conclusions: Regional integration organisations and their member states should be aware of the capacity of TTCs to act in a coordinated transnational manner to influence policy in their own interests, and coordinate their own public health and tax policies in a similarly effective way.

Citing Articles

Exploring the Political Economy Nexus of Tobacco Production and Control: A Case Study from Zambia.

Ruckert A, Labonte R, Lencucha R, Goma F, Drope J Crit Public Health. 2023; 33(1):25-36.

PMID: 36776543 PMC: 9913890. DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2021.1981540.


Measuring the Commercial Determinants of Health and Disease: A Proposed Framework.

Lee K, Freudenberg N, Zenone M, Smith J, Mialon M, Marten R Int J Health Serv. 2021; 52(1):115-128.

PMID: 34723675 PMC: 8592108. DOI: 10.1177/00207314211044992.


How to combat efforts to overturn bans on electronic nicotine delivery systems: lessons from tobacco industry efforts during the 1980s to open closed cigarette markets in Thailand.

Patanavanich R, Glantz S BMJ Glob Health. 2021; 6(1).

PMID: 33500264 PMC: 7843299. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004288.


Health Taxes on Tobacco, Alcohol, Food and Drinks in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review of Policy Content, Actors, Process and Context.

Elliott L, Dalglish S, Topp S Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020; 11(4):414-428.

PMID: 32945639 PMC: 9309941. DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.170.


A multi-level, multi-jurisdictional strategy: Transnational tobacco companies' attempts to obstruct tobacco packaging restrictions.

Hawkins B, Holden C, Mackinder S Glob Public Health. 2018; 14(4):570-583.

PMID: 29521160 PMC: 6129412. DOI: 10.1080/17441692.2018.1446997.


References
1.
Hurt R, Ebbert J, Muggli M, Lockhart N, Robertson C . Open doorway to truth: legacy of the Minnesota tobacco trial. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009; 84(5):446-56. PMC: 2676127. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)60563-6. View

2.
Gilmore A, McKee M . Tobacco and transition: an overview of industry investments, impact and influence in the former Soviet Union. Tob Control. 2004; 13(2):136-42. PMC: 1747859. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2002.002667. View

3.
Bero L . Implications of the tobacco industry documents for public health and policy. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002; 24:267-88. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.140813. View

4.
Holden C, Lee K . Corporate Power and Social Policy: The Political Economy of the Transnational Tobacco Companies. Glob Soc Policy. 2010; 9(3):328-354. PMC: 2836532. DOI: 10.1177/1468018109343638. View

5.
Patel P, Collin J, Gilmore A . "The law was actually drafted by us but the Government is to be congratulated on its wise actions": British American Tobacco and public policy in Kenya. Tob Control. 2007; 16(1):e1. PMC: 2598451. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2006.016071. View