The relationships between cigarette affordability, consumer income levels and distribution, and tax increases are complex and underexplored. This study investigates different ways of calculating the Relative Income Price (RIP) measure of affordability using Malaysia as a case study. We calculate cigarette affordability in Malaysia between 2009-2019 using government data, and multiple RIP variants. The conventional RIP calculation relies on 2,000 sticks and GDP (henceforth standard RIP). We explore that and other variants that use annual cigarette consumption estimates and/or proportions of various financial measures of wealth in both rural and urban areas. Our findings indicate broadly consistent trends in cigarette affordability across all methods. From 2009 to 2012, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of wealth required to purchase cigarettes, followed by an increase in 2015 and 2016, and then another decline, suggesting a recent trend toward increased affordability. Using the standard RIP method, 0.9 percentage points(pp) more of per capita GDP was required between 2009 and 2016, but, by 2019 it was 0.1pp less than in 2016. However, Household Income Per Capita (HIPC) and Household Expenditure Per Capita (HEPC) provide a more nuanced perspective on cigarette affordability compared to GDP per capita, as they reveal larger shifts in affordability. The conventional 2,000 sticks method using HIPC from 2009 to 2016 indicated 0.3pp more of income was required to purchase cigarettes, but by 2019, it was 1.0pp less than in 2016. Using HIPC with actual consumption estimates, smokers required approximately 0.9pp more of average income to purchase cigarettes between 2014 and 2016, but 2.5pp less from 2016 to 2019. Actual consumption estimates offer insight into smokers' ability to offset higher purchase costs by adjusting consumption patterns without quitting. We conclude that to address issues related to cigarette affordability, the Malaysian government should consider increasing tobacco tax vis-à-vis income growth.
This paper critically analyses contrasting estimates of Malaysia's illicit cigarette trade in 2011, 2015 and 2019 by Bui et al and Koya et al who previously produced independent estimates at about the same time using tax gap analysis. Collaboration between the two authors' teams emerged due to the discrepancies in their results, generating this paper to explore the methodological issues identified and hence produce revised estimates of the rate of illicit. Key issues identified were: Bui et al's assessment of legally imported cigarettes impacting all years; their exclusion of ad valorem duty affecting the 2011 and 2015 estimates; Koya et al overlooked the value of cigarettes for export market in their ad valorem calculation and used the sales value of imported tobacco/tobacco products, not just cigarettes, both of which impact estimates for 2011 and 2015. Recalculations using Koya et al's consumption data reveal that in 2019, illicit cigarettes accounted for about 70% of the market, which is higher than Bui et al's estimate (38%) but slightly lower than Koya et al's (72%). For 2011 and 2015 where ad valorem applied, the corrected estimates show a share of the illicit cigarette market of approximately 41.1% and 52.7%, respectively, differing from Bui et al's 0% in 2011 and 29.6% in 2015, and Koya et al's 51% in 2011 and 55% in 2015. This paper provides essential lessons for addressing methodological issues between authors' teams and updated estimates of Malaysia's illicit cigarette trade, verifying that Malaysia faces a substantial illicit cigarette trade problem.