HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2005.078378v1 AJPH.2005.078378v2 97/11/2001    most recent Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gilmore, A. Articles by Townsend, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gilmore, A. Articles by Townsend, J. Related Collections Tobacco Control Health Law Public Health Practice

Anna Gilmore, PhD, MBBS, DTM&H, MSc, MFPH, Jeff Collin, PhD, MA and Joy Townsend, PhD, MSc

At the time of this study, Anna Gilmore, Jeff Collin, and Joy Townsend were with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Ela Gohil, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT UK (e-mail: ela.gohil{at}lshtm.ac.uk).

Objectives. The International Monetary Fund encourages privatization of state-owned tobacco industries. Privatization tends to lower cigarette prices, which encourages consumption. This could be countered with effective tax policies. We explored how investment by British American Tobacco (BAT) influenced tax policy in Uzbekistan during privatization there.

Methods. We obtained internal documents from BAT and analyzed them using a hermeneutic process to create a chronology of events.

Results. BAT thoroughly redesigned the tobacco taxation system in Uzbekistan. It secured (1) a reduction of approximately 50% in the excise tax on cigarettes, (2) an excise system to benefit its brands and disadvantage those of its competitors (particularly Philip Morris), and (3) a tax stamp system from which it hoped to be exempted, because this would likely facilitate its established practice of cigarette smuggling and further its competitive advantage..

Conclusions. Privatization can endanger effective tobacco excise policies. The International Monetary Fund should review its approach to privatization and differentiate the privatization of an industry whose product kills from privatization of other industries.