Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:33:52.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Proposed alcohol tax reform in the United Kingdom: Implications for wine-exporting countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2022

Kym Anderson*
Affiliation:
Wine Economics Research Centre, School of Economics and Public Policy, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia Arndt-Cordon Department of Economics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Glyn Wittwer
Affiliation:
Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Kym Anderson, email: [email protected]

Abstract

A proposal to reform the United Kingdom's excise duty on alcohol is under consideration during 2022. The proposal would change the tax base from volume of product to volume of alcohol, which would see a fall in the tax on sparkling wine (by about one-fifth), a rise in the tax on fortified wines of 18% alcohol by volume (ABV) (by about one-sixth), and table wines with more (less) than 11.5% ABV would become dearer (cheaper). With taxes on most beers unchanged and taxes on spirits lowered slightly, the pattern of UK wine consumption and imports would alter considerably. This article draws on a global model of national alcoholic beverage markets to estimate the likely bilateral trade effects of this proposed reform to UK excise duties. It compares them with the trade effects of the United Kingdom's first two bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs), following the post-Brexit EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which allows Australian and New Zealand vignerons tariff-free access to the UK wine market. Those two FTAs are estimated to cause the United Kingdom to import far more wine than is lost by the proposed changes in UK excise duties.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Association of Wine Economists

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AGW (2022). Australian Grape & Wine Submission Responding to: The New Alcohol Duty System’ Consultation Paper (October 2021). Adelaide: Australian Grape and Wine, January. Accessed April 20 at https://www.agw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/AGW-submission_-Proposed-UK-tax-arrangements_30-January-2022-FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Alston, J. M., Fuller, K., Lapsley, J. T., Soleas, G., and Tumber, K. (2015). Splendide mendax: False label claims about the high and rising alcohol content of wine. Journal of Wine Economics, 10(3), 275313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. (2020). Consumer taxes on alcohol: An international comparison over time. Journal of Wine Economics, 15(1), 4270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K., and Pinilla, V. (2021). Annual Database of Global Wine Markets, 1835 to 2018. Wine Economics Research Centre, University of Adelaide. Updated January 2021 at www.adelaide.edu.au/wine-econ/databases.Google Scholar
HM Treasury (2021). The New Alcohol Duty System: Consultation. London: HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs, October. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1028702/20211026_Alcohol_Duty_Review_Consultation_and_CFE_response.pdf.Google Scholar
Holmes, A. J., and Anderson, K. (2017). Annual Database of National Beverage Consumption Volumes and Expenditures, 1950 to 2015. Accessible at www.adelaide.edu.au/wine-econ/databases/alcohol-consumption.Google Scholar
New Zealand Winegrowers (2022). 2021 Annual Report. Auckland: New Zealand Winegrowers.Google Scholar
United Nations (2022). COMTRADE Database. Accessed May 15 at https://comtrade.un.org/db.Google Scholar
Wine Australia (2022). Export Report December 2021. Adelaide: Wine Australia.Google Scholar
Wittwer, G., and Anderson, K. (2020). A model of global beverage markets. Journal of Wine Economics, 15(3), 330354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar