Contradictions within the SDGs: are sin taxes for health improvement at odds with employment and economic growth in Zambia

Abstract

BackgroundA recurring discussion in the literature relates to the possible contradictions among the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The focus has been on economic goals, such as economic growth and goals related to climate change. We explore the possible contradictions that may arise between economic goals and health goals, specifically, the goal on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) — SDG3.4. As a way to achieve SDG3.4, countries have been urged to introduce sin taxes, such as those on sugar. Yet others have argued that such taxes may affect employment (SDG 8.5), economic growth (SDG 8.1), and increase poverty (SDG1). However, there is limited or no reliable evidence, using actual experience, on the effect of sugar tax on health and economic outcomes. This makes it hard to assess the possible contradictions in SDGs that sugar taxes may generate.Main bodyUsing a conceptual framework on SDGs that views relationships among SDGs as either contradictory, reinforcing, or neutral, we carefully consider whether there are contradictions between SDG 3.4 on one hand and SDG 1, SDG 8.1, and SDG 8.5 on the other hand. We illustrate this using Zambia which recently introduced an equivalent 3% tax on non-alcoholic beverages, implicitly targeted at sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), given the stated goal of reducing NCDs. Concerns are that such a tax would be detrimental to the Zambia sugar value chain which contributes about 6% to GDP, in which case the achievement of SDG 3.4 (health) would be at odds with, or contradict, SDG 1, SDG 8.1, and SDG 8.5 (poverty eradication, economic growth, and creation of employment). We discuss that the existence of contradictions depend on a number of contextual factors, which allows us to make two conclusions about sugar taxation in Zambia. First, the current tax rate of 3% is likely neutral (no contradictions or reinforcing relationships) because it is too low to have any health or employment effects. However, the revenue raised can be reinvested to improve livelihoods. Secondly, the tax rate should be increased but care has to be exercised to ensure that the rate is not too high to generate contradictions. There will be need to carefully assess important parameters such as elasticities and explore alternative economic livelihoods.ConclusionWithout paying due consideration to important contextual factors, Zambia and many LMIC risk experiencing contradictions among SDGs.

Asserting public health interest in acting on commercial determinants of health in sub-Saharan Africa: insights from a discourse analysis

“…In the SDGs, 'attempting to achieve one may result in another being negatively affected'. 81 Health protection should be integrated during: economic and trade negotiations and agreements (eg, AfCFTA), and in negotiations on development aid, commercial agreements, new technologies, extractives' health duties and health services commercialisation. Despite benefits from funding, technology, training, R&D, innovation and expertise, directly or in public-private-partnerships (PPPs), higher-thananticipated PPP costs to governments and weak state capacities to either manage and pay for contracted services or to fund public interest innovation weakens equitable access and financial protection.…”

Epistemic Infrastructures: SDGs and the Making of Global Public Policy

“…Nonetheless, their translation into quantified targets soon gave rise to criticisms that some goals were contradictory and achieving one would be counterproductive for achieving another. Examples of such critique have primarily been expressed in relation to the economic growth goals contradicting the climate change or the global health ones (e.g., Hangoma & Surgey, 2019).…”

Intersectoral policy on industries that produce unhealthy commodities: governing in a new era of the global economy?

“… 27 53 Similar analysis examining the economic benefits and costs of sugar tax in Zambia illustrates that change in consumption has implications for the economics of production. 54 The challenge becomes how to reconfigure institutions to support a healthy product supply and fill the void left by reductions in the supply of unhealthy commodities.…”