Downloads

WP202140-Price-floors-and-externality-correction.pdf
PDF | 1.77 MB
We evaluate the impact of a price floor for alcohol introduced in Scotland in 2018, using a difference-in-differences strategy with England as a control group. We show that the policy led to the largest reductions in alcohol units purchased among the heaviest drinkers – the group who, at the margin, are likely to create the largest externalities from drinking. The price floor is well targeted at heavy drinkers because they buy a much greater fraction of their units from cheap products and switched away from these products strongly, with only limited substitution towards more expensive products. We show that if the marginal external cost of drinking is at least moderately higher for heavy than lighter drinkers, then a price floor outperforms an ethanol tax. However, more flexible tax systems can achieve similar reductions in externalities to the price floor, but avoid the large transfers from public funds to the alcohol industry that arise under the floor.
Authors

CPP Co-Director
Rachel is Research Director and Professor at the University of Manchester. She was made a Dame for services to economic policy and education in 2021.

Research Fellow University of Wisconsin
Martin, previously Deputy Research Director, is a Research Fellow at IFS and Professor of Economics at the University of Wisconsin.

Research Fellow London School of Economics
Kate is an IFS Research Fellow and an Assistant Professor at LSE, interested in public finance, industrial organisation and applied microeconomics.
Working Paper details
- DOI
- 10.1920/wp.ifs.2021.4021
- Publisher
- Institute for Fiscal Studies
Suggested citation
R, Griffith and M, O'Connell and K, Smith. (2021). Price floors and externality correction. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies. Available at: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/price-floors-and-externality-correction-0 (accessed: 14 June 2025).
More from IFS
Understand this issue

Average household consumption spending before and after housing costs, and mean weekly per-capita income, in different local authorities, 2018–2019
Londoners may have the highest average incomes, but their household spending once you account for housing costs is lower than other regions.
11 April 2025

Rank of local authorities by average household income compared to rank by average consumption after housing costs
On average, London local authorities rank at the top of the income distribution, but are bottom of the net-of-housing consumption distribution.
11 April 2025

Sure Start’s wide-ranging and long-lasting benefits highlight the impact of integrated early years services
Over the long run, Sure Start’s financial benefits could be twice as high as its costs
22 May 2025
Policy analysis

Which places have the highest standard of living?
Measuring living standards using average household spending gives a starkly different picture of regional inequalities than using average income.
11 April 2025

The short- and medium-term effects of Sure Start on children’s outcomes
An evaluation of Sure Start’s impacts on education, health, absences, special educational needs, crime and social care, plus a cost–benefit analysis.
22 May 2025

Working in your 60s: a way to stay young for some
On average, women who remained in work for longer following increases in the state pension age saw improved cognition and less physical disability.
13 May 2025
Academic research

Measuring cost of living inequality during an inflation surge
We provide new evidence that inflation inequality surged during the 2021–2023 cost-of living crisis.
9 May 2025

Fiscal consolidation and voting: on the electoral costs of budgetary stability
In this paper, we analyse the potential impact of policies aimed at fostering fiscal sustainability on citizens’ preferences.
6 May 2025

Consumer bankruptcy, mortgage default, and labor supply
We specify and estimate a life-cycle model of consumption, housing demand, and labor supply using data on credit reports combined with Census data.
14 April 2025