Search results

This paper aims to describe the various government measures that regulate the market for novel tobacco harm reduction products (THRPs), with an emphasis on e-cigarettes [electronic nicotine delivery systems (“ENDS”)], and evaluates the public health impact of excise taxes levied on these products.

The paper reviews the economic research on the impact ENDS. Using cited evidence, the paper compares the tax treatment of ENDS and cigarettes and provides a simulation of potential lives that can be saved under alternative tax treatment of ENDS.

ENDS are considerably less harmful than cigarettes. Imposing the same tax burden on them (per unit of “harm”) as on cigarettes leads to poorer health outcomes. Differential tax treatment of ENDS will encourage more cigarette smokers to switch to ENDS and could save millions of lives worldwide.

Country experiences with regulatory measures on ENDS are limited to those with high THRP penetration. The paper’s simulation analysis used evidence from a limited number of studies. Rigorous economic analysis is needed to understand how ENDS could save lives and could prevent expected one billion premature deaths by the end of this century.

The paper uses research evidence in its analysis of the impact that the differential taxation of cigarettes and ENDS would have. It also provides a rough estimate of the number of lives that could be saved if more smokers who are trying to quit can make the switch to ENDS.

Nobody has ever liked paying taxes, but individual grumbling is growing to a loud chorus of complaints. The system of federal income taxes has become so complex that few individuals can compute for themselves what they owe and both personal and corporate financial decisions are often based more on their tax consequences than on their soundness from either a production or consumption point of view. All this leads to a perceived unfairness, with some better able than others to take advantage of preferences and loopholes in the system.

This study aims to empirically investigate how an industrial region has reacted to different shocks – competitive, market and environmental – through its economic subsystems – its firms, workers and institutions – in a longitudinal perspective for the period 1985–2021.

The authors used a mixed-method approach applied to a case study of the Brazilian T&C industrial region. The authors used two data sources and two stages for data collection. The first stage involved documentary research and the second in-depth interviews. The analysis of qualitative data took place in two stages. In the first, the authors applied content analysis, and in the second stage, the authors used the exploratory statistical technique of simple correspondence analysis and the categorical data.

The results provide evidence that different types of shock provoke different reactions. However, the shock–reaction relationship is invariable over time. The authors observed proportionality in the size of the shock and the regional actors involved in the regional response – firms, workers and institutions.

The authors went a step further, presenting empirical research on the shock–reaction relationship using the “type of shock” as a variable. This paper provides a holistic understanding of the factors behind regional resilience through insights into the role that resources, structures, institutions and actors play in the regional response to distinct types of shocks, reaching four main conclusions.

The paper describes patterns of study on innovation in the regional economic resilience literature regarding methods and findings.

This study is a descriptive one and it uses, as a method, the scoping review based on Scopus and Web of Science databases. Forty-eight theoretical-empirical papers were thematically coded, and analyses were conducted using R packages and MaxQDA.

Innovation has been used narrowly in the regional resilience literature, considering the variables, the types of shocks and the analyzed loci. From the sampled papers, this study suggests that, depending on the operationalization, the addressed relationship can be positive or negative, which still needs further investigation. In addition, the study identified two lines of research. The first, characterized by quantitative research, secondary sources and multivariate analyses, focuses on testing predictive regional resilience models based on innovation-related variables. The second, characterized by qualitative or multi-method approaches, is more concerned with explaining the knowledge accumulation and the learning capacity related to regional innovation.

The paper’s findings show a restricted view of the innovation–resilience relationship. Although this study does not present a meta-analysis, it reveals gaps for future research. Some suggestions can be highlighted, such as (1) expanding knowledge about innovation as a predictor of resilience, (2) the theoretical development of this relationship to guide empirical investigations and (3) studies that consider the meso or micro level, approaching the role of actors in fostering innovation in the regional resilience process.

This paper fulfills an identified need to investigate how innovation has been operationalized in regional resilience empirical research.

DEAR SIR,—Failing being able to provide a really well equipped Reference Library, does it not seem a pity to waste the few funds at the disposal of the average public librarian in a desperate attempt to provide a collection of local books, with the forlorn hope of stimulating interest in the department, or in buying a handful of standard reference works for the benefit of those “serious” readers who frequent the library?