برآورد تقاضای خانوارهای ایرانی از محصولات دخانی
محورهای موضوعی : اعتیاد و بزه‌دیدگی
محمد حسین امجدی
1
*
,
مرضیه انحصاری
2
1 - دانش‌آموخته دکتری اقتصاد دانشگاه شهید باهنر، کرمان، ایران
2 - دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی ارشد ریاضی، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، ایران
کلید واژه: تقاضای دخانیات, پیامدهای مصرف دخانیات, کشش درآمدی و هزینه درآمد خانوار. ,
چکیده مقاله :
مختلفی در تقاضای محصولات دخانی تأثیرگذار است. هدف از این تحقیق، برآورد تابع تقاضای محصولات دخانی در کشور و محاسبۀ کشش درآمدي آن است. برای این منظور با استفاده از اطلاعات هزینه- درآمد خانوار سال 1402، ابتدا وضعیت هزینه‌های دخانی بر اساس ویژگی‌های اقتصادی اجتماعی خانوار بررسی و سپس با استفاده از مدل توبیت، تقاضای دخانیات برآورد شد. نتایج برآورد مدل نشان می‌دهد که همه متغیرها با اطمینان بیش از 99 درصد به لحاظ آماري معنادار بوده‌اند. بر اساس برآورد صورت‌گرفته، کشش درآمدی هزینه‌های دخانی، معادل 825/0 است؛ بدین معنا که افزایش 1 درصدی درآمد سبب می‌شود تا خانوار ایرانی به میزان 825/0درصد، هزینه‌های دخانی خود را افزایش دهد. با توجه به نتایج تحقیق، مقابله با اين پديده خطرناك، همكاري فراگير نهادهاي دولتي و غير دولتي را طلب مي‌كند. پایش مصرف دخانیات و سیاست‌های پیشگیرانه، محافظت از مردم در برابر دود دخانیات، کمک به ترک مصرف، هشدار در برابر خطرهای مصرف دخانیات، ممنوعیت تبلیغات و ترویج و حمایت از دخانیات، جلوگیری از قاچاق سیگار و سیاستگذاری مالیاتی از جمله پیشنهادهای این پژوهش است.
Estimating Household Demand for
Tobacco Products in Iran
Mohammad Hossein Amjadi *
Marziye Enhesari **
Tobacco use poses a significant public health threat. This study estimates the demand function for tobacco products in Iran and calculates their income elasticity. Using data from the 2023 Household Income and Expenditure Survey, we first analyze household nicotine-related expenditures based on socio-economic characteristics. A Tobit regression model is then employed to estimate demand. All variables are statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. Income elasticity is estimated at 0.825, indicating that a 1% income increase leads to a 0.825% rise in tobacco expenditures. Effective intervention requires wide-ranging cooperation across public and private sectors. Proposed recommendations include: monitoring smoking patterns; implementing preventive policies; protecting against secondhand smoke; aiding cessation efforts; raising risk awareness; banning tobacco advertisements; combating smuggling; and enacting effective tax reforms.
Keywords: Tobacco Demand, Consequences of Tobacco Consumption, Income Elasticity, Household Expenditures, Tobit Model.
Introduction
Tobacco consumption has multifaceted social implications, spanning cultural, psychological, economic, and public health domains. It correlates with reduced life quality, as smokers often report lower well-being. Moreover, tobacco use may act as a gateway to other substances.
A household's consumption of tobacco products represents part of its total expenditures, which varies with its socio-economic priorities. Since each tobacco user is a purchaser, expenditure on tobacco serves as a valid proxy for actual consumption. Accurately understanding tobacco prevalence helps inform public health policy. In this context, we employ the 2023 Household Income and Expenditure Survey to estimate smoking prevalence in urban and rural Iran, identify socio-economic determinants of tobacco spending, and calculate income-based demand elasticity.
Consequently, this study addresses three research questions:
- How does household tobacco demand vary across socio-economic groups in Iran?
- What are the socio-economic determinants influencing household tobacco demand?
- What is the income elasticity of tobacco demand among Iranian households?
Systematic reviews of Iranian and international studies reveal a range of socio-economic influences on tobacco consumption (Table1). Findings vary, reflecting differences in population, methodology, and context.
Table1 – Socio-economic Determinants of Tobacco Consumption
(+: positive effect, –: negative effect, /: no significant effect)
|
Study |
Tobacco Type |
Influencing Factors |
|
Aristei & Pieroni (2008) |
Various |
Income (+), Age (+), Education (–), Gender (+), Marital Status (+), Social Class (–) |
|
Reggio et al. (2011) |
Tobacco |
Age (+), Gender (–), Marital Status (–), Residence (+), Unemployment (+), Literacy (+), Ethnicity (+) |
|
WHO (2019) |
Various |
Income (+), Age (+), Residence (+), Gender (+) |
|
Recher (2020) |
Smuggled Cigarettes |
Gender (–), Age (+), Income (+), Employment (–), Education (/), Residence (+) |
|
Nyaguachi et al. (2020) |
Tobacco & Alcohol |
Household Size (+), Education (+), Alcohol Use (+), Income (+) |
|
Gorji et al. (2009) |
Cigarettes |
Price (–), Income (+), Unemployment (+), Literacy (–) |
|
Ebadi et al. (2011) |
Cigarettes |
Age (+), Education (–), Gender (+), Occupation (+), Residence (+) |
|
Kouhbor (2013) |
Various |
Age (+), Education (+), Gender (+), Occupation (+), Income (+), Residence (–), Household Size (–) |
|
Mostafapour & Yazdanpanah (2015) |
Tobacco |
Age (+), Gender (–), Marital Status (–), Income (+) |
|
Pirdehghan et al. (2016) |
Tobacco |
Gender (+), Student Education (–), Head's Education (+), Income (+) |
|
National Institute of Health Research (2018) |
Various |
Age (Men [/] Women [+]), Gender (+), Income (–), Residence (+) |
|
Ziaoddini & Ziaoddini (2018) |
Cigarettes |
Gender (+), Age (+) |
|
Mehri et al. (2023) |
Cigarettes |
Family (+), Education (–), Gender (+), Income (+) |
Methodology
A descriptive-analytical design was used, drawing on the 2023 Household Income and Expenditure Survey. Data were analyzed using Access 2013, SPSS18, and Stata12. The Tobit model was selected to account for censored data where many households report zero tobacco expenditures:
Findings
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
The sample comprised 37,883 households (19,640 urban; 18,243 rural), with 7,311 (19.3%) reporting tobacco use. Urban users constituted 18%, while rural users were 21%. Annual expenditures and tobacco budget shares are reported in Table2.
Table 2 – Average Annual Household Expenditure by Area (2023)
|
Indicator |
Rural |
Urban |
|
% Using Any Tobacco |
21% |
18% |
|
Domestic Cigarette Users |
8.9% |
8.2% |
|
Foreign Cigarette Users |
8.7% |
7.5% |
|
Tobacco/Pipe/Rolling Paper Users |
2.4% |
1.5% |
|
Other Tobacco Product Users |
2.7% |
1.5% |
|
Avg. Annual Total Expenditure (IRR) |
206,525,000 |
110,659,000 |
|
Avg. Annual Tobacco Expenditure (IRR) |
863,300 |
1,103,000 |
|
Tobacco Share of Total Expenses |
0.42% |
1.00% |
4.2 Tobit Model Estimation
The likelihood ratio (LR) test was significant (LR chi²=1386.09), confirming the model's adequacy. Results are summarized in Table3 below.
Table 3 – Tobit Estimation Results for Tobacco Expenditures
|
Variable |
Coefficient |
Std. Error |
z-Value |
p-Value |
|
Log Household Income |
0.825 |
0.234 |
3.530 |
0.000 |
|
Household Size |
1.083 |
0.149 |
7.260 |
0.000 |
|
Head’s Age |
1.099 |
0.067 |
16.500 |
0.000 |
|
Age² |
–0.010 |
0.001 |
–15.570 |
0.000 |
|
Number of Literate Members |
–0.786 |
0.178 |
–4.410 |
0.000 |
|
Male Head (Dummy) |
12.360 |
0.590 |
20.940 |
0.000 |
|
Urban Residence (Dummy) |
–2.315 |
0.418 |
–5.540 |
0.000 |
|
Head’s Employment Status |
1.049 |
0.384 |
2.730 |
0.006 |
|
Constant |
–73.616 |
4.509 |
–16.330 |
0.000 |
Censored: 30,917; Uncensored: 6,966.
Discussion and Conclusion
Results confirm that tobacco is a normal good in Iran, with income elasticity of 0.825—less than unity but significantly positive, indicating that consumption increases with income. A larger household size also raises tobacco spending.
The negative coefficient for literate members highlights the protective effect of education, likely due to health literacy and risk awareness. Older heads exhibit higher consumption up to a point, after which it tapers off (as shown by the negative Age² coefficient).
Male-headed households spend notably more on tobacco than female-headed households, aligning with gender-based smoking patterns. And in rural settings, per-household expenditures are higher despite lower total income—likely due to less stringent regulation or cultural acceptance. This study establishes that income, household composition, education, gender, and geographic residence significantly influence tobacco expenditures in Iran. Price-based and socio-economic interventions, particularly directed at rural and less-educated populations, could substantially reduce smoking rates.
Policy recommendations include:
- Implementing higher tobacco excise taxes to deter consumption.
- Introducing public health education, especially among youth and in rural areas.
- Enforcing strict bans on tobacco advertising and public smoking.
- Supporting smoking cessation programs at local levels.
- Strengthening anti-smuggling and border control measures.
- Promoting inter-sectoral collaboration, consistent with recommendations from the WHO FCTC and World Bank.
References
Moosazadeh, M., Salami, F., Movahednia, M., Amiri, MM. & Afshari, M. (2014) Prevalence of smoking in northwest Iran: a meta-analysis.Electronic physician. 6(1), 734-740
Nemati, S., Rafei, A., Freedman, ND., Fotouhi, A., Asgary, F. & Zendehdel, K. (2017) Cigarette and Water-Pipe Use in Iran: Geographical Distributionand Time Trends among the Adult Population; A Pooled Analysis of National STEPS Surveys, 2006-2009. Archivesof Iranian Medicine (AIM), 20(5), 259-301.
Nyagwachia, A.O. Chelwac, G. & Walbeeka, C. (2020) The effect of tobacco- and alcohol-control policies on household spending patterns in Kenya: An approach using matched difference in differences. Social Science & Medicine, 256, 113029.
*Corresponding Author: Ph.D of Economics, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran.
** M.A Mathematics, Sistan & Bluchestan University, Zahedan, Iran.
m.enhesari90@gmail.com
احمدی، سیروس و دیگران (1398) «تبیین اثر کنترل اجتماعی بر شکل‌گیری پتانسیل رفتارهای نابهنجار (مورد مطالعه: نواحی شهری و روستایی استان کهگیلویه و بویراحمد)»، مطالعات امنیت اجتماعی، سال دهم، شماره 57، صص 73-101.
اکبری، مرضیه و زهرا شعوری (1399) بررسی آسیب‌ها و خطرات استعمال دخانیات بر ابعاد مختلف زندگی به‌ویژه سلامت انسان، کنگره بین‌المللی علوم و صنایع غذایی، کشاورزی و امنیت غذایی.
پناهی، رحمن و محمد عنبری (1398) «سواد دخانیات و ابعاد احتمالی آن»، فصلنامه علمی- پژوهشی بهداشت در عرصه، سال هفتم، شماره 1، صص 1-2.
پیردهقان، آذر و دیگران (1395) «تعیین عوامل پیشگویی‌کننده مصرف قلیان در دانش‌آموزان دوره پیش‌دانشگاهی شهرستان یزد در سال ۱۳۹۴»، مجله علمی پژوهان، شماره ۱، صص 28-36.
ضیاءالدینی، حسن و محمدرضا ضیاءالدینی (1385) «همه‌گیرشناسی مصرف دخانیات و ارتباط آن با برخی فاکتورهای دموگرافیک در یک منطقه روستایی کرمان»، مجله اصول بهداشت روانی، سال هشتم، شماره 30، صص 17-22.
عبادی، مهدی و دیگران (1390) «شیوع مصرف دخانیات: مطالعه سلامت از دیدگاه مردم ایران»، پایش، سال دهم، شماره ۳، صص ۳۶۵-۳۷۲.
کوهبر، محمدامین (1392) «استفاده از الگوهای متغیر وابسته گسسته در تحلیل رفتار مصرفی خانوار (مورد مصرف دخانیات) »، اقتصاد و الگوسازی، سال چهارم، شماره 14-15، صص 191-215.
گرجی، حسن ابوالقاسم و دیگران (1388) «ارتباط قیمت سیگار با میزان مصرف آن طی سال‌های ۱۳۸۵-۱۳۶۳»، فصلنامه مدیریت سلامت، سال دوازدهم، شماره ۳۸، صص 31-36.
لطفی خاچکی، بهنام و علی‌اصغر قادری (1400) «مطالعه عوامل اجتماعی گرایش جوانان به مصرف قلیان (مورد مطالعه: جوانان 17 تا 35 ساله شهر تهران)»، جامعه‌شناسی سبک زندگی، سال پنجم، شماره 14، صص 261-310.
محرابی، سمراد و دیگران (1386) «مصرف سیگار در جمعیت 15-۶۴ سالة ایران، سال ۱۳۸۴»، مجله اپیدمیولوژی ایران، سال سوم، شماره ۱ و ۲، صص 1-9.
مصطفی‌پور، علی و لیلا یزدان‌پناه (1394) «بررسی عوامل اجتماعی گرایش به مصرف تنباکو با تأکید بر سبک زندگی (مورد مطالعه: شهروندان شهر بوکان)»، بررسی مسائل اجتماعی ایران، سال ششم، شماره 2، صص 353-372.
مؤسسه ملی تحقیقات سلامت (1397) طرح پژوهشی شیوع مصرف دخانیات در بزرگ¬سالان ایرانی (مطالعه عوامل خطر بیماری‌های غیر واگیر در ایران در سال 1395).
مهری، احمد و دیگران (1402) «بررسی شیوع مصرف سیگار و عوامل مرتبط با آن در دانشجویان دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کاشان»، سلامت و محیط‌زیست، سال شانزدهم، شماره 3، صص ۵۶۵-۵۷۸.
Aristei, D. & Pieroni, L. (2008) A Double-Hurdle Approach to Modelling Tobacco Consumption in Italy. Applied Economics, 40(19), 2463-2476.
Asma, S., Mackay, J., Song, S., Zhao, L., Morton, J. & Palipudi, K. (2015) The GATS Atlas (Global Adult Tobacco Survey). CDC Foundation, Atlanta, GA.
Blaylock, J.R., & Blisard, W.N. (1993) Wine consumption by US men, Applied Economics, 24, 645-651.
Chaloupka, F. J., Yurekli, A., & Fong, G. T. (2012) Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy. Tobacco control, 21(2), 172-180.
Crespi, F., Liberati, P., Paradiso, M. Sciala, A. Tedeschi, S. (2020) Smokers are different: The impact of price increases on smoking reduction and downtrading. Economic Modelling.1-9.
Greene, W. H. (2002) Econometric Analysis, Fifth edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
John, R. M., Ross, H., & Blecher, E. (2011). Tobacco expenditure patterns in India and their implications on household resource allocation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(1), 3–10.
Lopez, A. D., Collishaw, N. E., & Piha, T. (1994). A descriptive model of the cigarette epidemic in developed countries. Tobacco Control, 3(3), 242–247.
Meysamie, A., Ghaletaki, R., Haghazali, M., Asgari, F., Rashidi, A., Khalilzadeh, O., Esteghamati, A. & Abbasi, M (2010) Pattern of tobacco use among the Iranian adult population: results of the national Survey of Risk Factors of Non-Communicable Diseases (SuRFNCD-2007). Tobacco control. 19(2):125-128.
Moosazadeh, M., Salami, F., Movahednia, M., Amiri, MM. & Afshari, M. (2014) Prevalence of smoking in northwest Iran: a meta-analysis.Electronic physician. 6(1), 734-740.
Moosazadeh, M., Ziaaddini, H., Mirzazadeh A., Ashrafi-Asgarabad, A. & Haghdoost, AA. (2013) Meta-analysis of smoking prevalence in Iran. Addiction & health, 5(3-4),140-153.
Nemati, S., Rafei, A., Freedman, ND., Fotouhi, A., Asgary, F. & Zendehdel, K. (2017) Cigarette and Water-Pipe Use in Iran: Geographical Distributionand Time Trends among the Adult Population; A Pooled Analysis of National STEPS Surveys, 2006-2009. Archivesof Iranian Medicine (AIM),20(5), 259-301.
Nyagwachia, A.O. Chelwac, G. & Walbeeka, C. (2020) The effect of tobacco- and alcohol-control policies on household spending patterns in Kenya: An approach using matched difference in differences. Social Science & Medicine, 256, 113029.
Pudney, S. (1989) Modelling Individual Choice: The Econometrics of Corners, Kinks and Holes, New York: Basil Blackwell.
Recher, V. (2020) Illegal tobacco demand: The case of Western Balkan. Economic Analysis and Policy, 66, 182–193.
Rijo, M.J., Ross, H., Blecher, E. (2011). Tobacco expenditure and its implications for household resource allocation in Cambodia. Tobacco Control, 21(3), 341-346.
Tobin, J. (1958) Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables, Econometrica, 26, 24-36.
World Health Organization. (2019) WHO global report on trends in prevalence of tobacco use 2000-2025- third edition.