BACKGROUND:A 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 BODY:Using 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. CONCLUSION:Without paying due consideration to important contextual factors, Zambia and many LMIC risk experiencing contradictions among SDGs.

译文

背景:文献中的反复讨论涉及可持续发展目标(SDG)之间可能存在的矛盾。重点一直放在经济目标上,例如经济增长和与气候变化有关的目标。我们探讨了经济目标与健康目标之间可能出现的矛盾,特别是关于非传染性疾病(NCD)目标-SDG3.4。作为实现SDG3.4的一种方式,已敦促各国开征罪恶税,例如食糖税。还有一些人认为,此类税收可能会影响就业(可持续发展目标8.5),经济增长(可持续发展目标8.1)和加剧贫困(可持续发展目标1)。但是,根据实际经验,关于糖税对健康和经济成果的影响的可靠证据有限或没有可靠证据。这使得很难评估糖税可能产生的可持续发展目标中可能存在的矛盾。
主要主体:使用关于SDG的概念框架,将SDG之间的关系视为矛盾,加强或中立,我们仔细考虑一方面SDG 3.4与SDG 1,SDG 8.1和SDG 8.5之间是否存在矛盾。 。我们使用赞比亚来说明这一点,赞比亚最近提出了对非酒精饮料征收相当于3%的税,隐含地针对含糖饮料(SSB),因为既定的目标是减少非传染性疾病。令人担忧的是,这种税收将不利于赞比亚糖价值链,赞比亚的糖价值链对GDP的贡献约为6%,在这种情况下,实现SDG 3.4(健康)将与SDG 1,SDG 8.1和SDG 1不一致或相矛盾。可持续发展目标8.5(消除贫困,经济增长和创造就业机会)。我们讨论了矛盾的存在取决于许多上下文因素,这使我们可以对赞比亚的食糖税作出两个结论。首先,目前的3%税率可能是中性的(无矛盾或无巩固关系),因为它太低了,不会对健康或就业产生任何影响。但是,筹集的收入可以用于改善生计。其次,应提高税率,但必须谨慎行事,以确保税率不会太高而不会引起矛盾。有必要仔细评估诸如弹性之类的重要参数,并探索替代性的经济生计。
结论:在没有适当考虑重要的背景因素的情况下,赞比亚和许多中低收入国家在可持续发展目标之间存在矛盾。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录