First-hand information for everyone
This paper asks whether rises in cigarette taxes and prices reduced smoking in European Union countries between 2012 and 2020. Using large survey data from 27 EU countries, the authors find that higher cigarette taxes are associated with a meaningful drop in smoking. The largest reductions occur among young people aged 15–24.
The researchers compare people who experienced large tax or price increases with those in places where taxes and prices stayed roughly the same. They use a difference-in-differences design, which looks at changes before and after a policy in treated and control groups. To reduce the risk of mistaken conclusions from simple models, they combine this approach with “double machine learning.” That method uses flexible machine-learning tools to control for other factors without forcing strong linear assumptions.
Their main result is that a cigarette tax increase is associated with a 3.44 percentage-point fall in the smoking rate for people who smoke at least once per month (about a 15% reduction; p = 0.04). For daily smokers the estimated decline is 3.15 percentage points (about 15%; p = 0.09). The reduction is driven mainly by people aged 15–24. By contrast, they do not find a statistically significant effect for cigarette price increases at the conventional 5% level. The authors note this could reflect bias from the way prices change over time and across places.
This evidence matters because tobacco taxes are a central public-health tool in Europe and worldwide. Europe has high smoking rates and heavy health losses from tobacco. Tax policy is recommended by the World Health Organization and EU rules already require member states to levy substantial cigarette taxes. The study also speaks to a changing market: the rise of electronic-cigarettes and other products could alter how people react to higher cigarette taxes.
The paper also highlights important caveats. The authors report that results are robust to different flexible modeling choices, but they are sensitive to how “treatment” is defined — whether tax or price change is treated as a simple yes/no event or as a continuous size variable. They also warn that price estimates may be biased by endogeneity, meaning prices may change for reasons tied to smoking behavior. Finally, the analysis is based on repeated cross‑section survey data from 2012–2020; it does not by itself show long-term effects or fully track shifts toward other nicotine products.