How effective was the Kenyan government's excise duty tax on cigarettes from 2019 to 2023 in influencing the economic behavior of consumers and mitigating negative externality on public health in Kenya?SL
Loading scores...
A
Official IB Result
27/34
Criteria A: Focus and Method
5/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
A.1Topic communication and appropriateness
Excellent
A.2Research question clarity and focus
Excellent
A.3Methodology completeness and appropriateness
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- The student's research question is clear, focused, and consistently tied to the investigation throughout the report.
- The student sets a specific national and time-bound context that makes the topic suitable for systematic investigation.
- The student uses a range of relevant sources and methods, including policy data, market data, and primary survey evidence.
- The student's method does not fully define what evidence would count as success for each outcome they are testing.
- The survey is too small and non-random to support broad population-wide claims on its own.
- Some evidence selection is not strong enough for the breadth of the student's conclusion, especially where a single source is asked to carry too much weight.
1.1·Strength
Page 1
The research question is clearly stated, geographically bounded, and time-specific. This gives the investigation a focused policy context and a coherent basis for later analysis of both consumer behaviour and externalities.
1.2·Suggestion
Page 4
The student could sharpen the method by defining what evidence would count as “effective” for each outcome. For example, specifying a threshold for change in legal consumption, illicit-market share, or health spending would make the investigation easier to test systematically.
1.3·Question
Page 5
How will the student separate the effect of the excise duty from other forces that also changed cigarette demand between 2019 and 2023, such as inflation, COVID-era disruption, enforcement changes, and anti-smoking campaigns?
1.4·Weakness
Page 5
This overstates the reliability of the methodology. There are competing interpretations of the data, and several sources have clear limitations; the student should acknowledge those limits rather than dismissing them, because methodological reflexivity is essential for a credible investigation.
1.5·Weakness
Page 6
The survey sample is too small and not randomly selected, so it cannot reliably estimate Kenya-wide PED. The student should frame this as indicative evidence only, or triangulate it with a larger dataset or published elasticity estimates.
1.6·Weakness
Page 6
Relying on one company respondent for the price series creates a weak evidence base. The student should verify these prices against independent market or retail data, since a single corporate source may not capture the broader market accurately.
Criteria B: Knowledge and Understanding
4/6
0
3
6
Criteria StrandsPro
B.1Application and relevance of source material
Moderate
B.2Knowledge of topic/discipline
Moderate
B.3Use of terminology and concepts
Moderate
Criteria Feedback
- The student applies relevant economic ideas such as indirect taxation, externalities, elasticity, inflation adjustment, and real versus nominal price comparison.
- The student's source material is generally relevant to the question and is often used in a purposeful way rather than being listed descriptively.
- The student shows clear understanding of the policy context and the market mechanisms involved in cigarette consumption.
- Some evidence is pushed beyond what it can demonstrate, especially when linking budget data or import movements to health outcomes or domestic consumption.
- Several economic terms and diagram relationships are not always used with full precision.
- The student's discussion would be stronger if they distinguished more carefully between programme spending, consumption changes, and realised health effects.
2.1·Strength
Page 3
This is a strong application of microeconomic theory to the Kenyan context. The student connects cigarette consumption to external costs and market failure, which shows sound conceptual understanding rather than simple description.
2.2·Weakness
Page 6
The definition of is incomplete because it refers only to producers’ costs, not the full private cost side of the market. The student should tighten the terminology so that the diagram and explanation use the same standard economic definitions throughout.
2.3·Weakness
Page 6
The diagram explanation misstates the externality relationship. For a negative consumption externality, the key gap is typically between and , not “-”; the student should correct the labels and explain which curve lies above the other.
2.4·Weakness
Page 8
This explanation is conceptually inaccurate. The student should revise the condition so that the tax moves the market toward the social optimum; as written, it incorrectly suggests the market is already at the socially optimal quantity while also needing correction.
2.5·Weakness
Page 10
This overstates the concept of substitutability. Even if alternatives may also be harmful, they can still function as substitutes in consumer choice; the student should distinguish between a perfect substitute, a close substitute, and a harmful alternative.
2.6·Suggestion
Page 13
The student could strengthen this by briefly showing the calculation or formula used to reach 7.4%. A transparent working would make the real-price adjustment easier to verify and improve confidence in the quantitative reasoning.
2.7·Weakness
Page 13
The student is over-interpreting the budget data. Figure 3 includes prevention, enforcement, governance, and tax measures, so a fall in total spending does not directly show fewer smoking-related illnesses; the analysis should separate programme expenditure from actual health outcomes.
2.8·Question
Page 14
Could the fall in imports also reflect supply-chain changes, regulatory barriers, or substitution toward domestic or illicit products rather than lower domestic consumption? The student should test that assumption before using imports as a proxy for consumption.
Criteria C: Critical Thinking
10/12
0
6
12
Criteria StrandsPro
C.1Research quality and relevance
Moderate
C.2Analysis depth
Poor
C.3Discussion and evaluation
Poor
Criteria Feedback
- The student builds a coherent argument that connects taxation, prices, consumer behaviour, and illicit-market responses.
- The student uses quantitative evidence, including elasticity estimation and inflation adjustment, to support analysis rather than relying only on description.
- The student shows awareness of limitations and confounding factors, which strengthens the quality of their evaluation.
- Some causal claims go beyond what the evidence can prove, especially when legal sales are treated as equivalent to total consumption.
- The student's evaluation does not always resolve competing interpretations of the evidence, particularly where illicit sales rise alongside falling legal sales.
- The conclusion sometimes overstates what the data show, rather than staying tightly aligned to the evidence available.
3.1·Strength
Page 10
This is a productive use of quantitative evidence because the student links survey data to a calculated elasticity estimate. That makes the argument more analytical than purely descriptive and helps connect theory to observed behaviour.
3.2·Weakness
Page 12
The student states the adjustment correctly, but the method needs to be shown more clearly. The calculation should explain exactly how nominal prices were converted into real prices so readers can judge whether the comparison across years is valid.
3.3·Weakness
Page 13
This is a weak causal inference. Reduced spending on tobacco-control programmes does not by itself demonstrate lower demand for cigarettes; the student should distinguish between policy spending, consumption behaviour, and health outcomes.
3.4·Weakness
Page 15
The student should be careful not to treat legal-market decline as a proxy for total consumption decline. Because illicit sales rose, the data may show substitution across market channels rather than reduced smoking overall.
3.5·Weakness
Page 16
The interpretation is reasonable, but the student should distinguish correlation from causation more carefully. Other factors may also have contributed to the change in demand, so the conclusion should be presented as an estimate rather than a definitive policy effect.
3.6·Weakness
Page 17
The argument becomes stronger here, but it still needs tighter reasoning. The student should explain why a growing illicit market supports the claim that taxation was effective, rather than acknowledging that it may simply have displaced demand into untaxed channels.
3.7·Question
Page 18
What evidence shows that the fall in spending corresponds to fewer smoking-related illnesses rather than lower programme budgets or reporting changes? The student should consider whether the health-expenditure indicator can support this conclusion on its own.
3.8·Weakness
Page 18
This conclusion overreaches the evidence. Legal consumption fell, but the rise in illicit sales means total consumption is not established; likewise, the spending data do not directly measure health outcomes. The student should align the conclusion strictly with what the evidence can prove.
3.9·Strength
Page 20
This is a strong evaluative comment because it recognises confounding variables rather than treating the survey result as isolated truth. The student shows awareness that observed demand changes may not be caused by price alone.
3.10·Suggestion
Page 21
The evaluation would be stronger if the student used this limitation to propose a concrete improvement, such as stratifying the survey by income band or using national household expenditure data to test how price sensitivity varies across groups.
Criteria D: Presentation
4/4
0
2
4
Criteria StrandsPro
D.1Structure appropriateness
Good
D.2Layout and formatting
Good
Criteria Feedback
- The student's report has a clear academic structure with a contents page, headings, and logically ordered sections.
- The student's formatting is generally professional, with pagination, readable layout, and labelled visual material.
- The student separates the main conclusion from the evaluation, which helps the report feel organised and deliberate.
- There are a few numbering and labelling inconsistencies that reduce polish.
- Some tables and figures would benefit from cleaner formatting and more consistent source presentation.
- At times the report includes too much descriptive material in places where the analysis should be more prominent.
4.1·Strength
Page 2
The report follows a clear academic structure with an organised contents page, which helps the reader navigate the investigation and locate the main sections efficiently.
4.2·Weakness
Page 2
The subsection numbering becomes inconsistent here because there are two different sections labelled 3.3. The student should renumber the report carefully so the structure is unambiguous and professional.
4.3·Weakness
Page 9
This section introduction is helpful, but it is quite broad and repetitive. The student could tighten it by stating exactly how each factor will be used in the analysis, which would reduce repetition later in the report.
4.4·Weakness
Page 14
The discussion of imports is placed in a way that risks overloading the data section with interpretation. The student should keep raw data presentation distinct from analysis so the report’s structure better separates evidence from argument.
4.5·Strength
Page 19
The evaluation section is clearly separated from the conclusion, which is good academic structure because it allows the student to distinguish final judgement from reflection on limitations.
4.6·Suggestion
Page 23
The references section would be stronger if every source were formatted consistently in one style and matched to in-text citations more precisely. Consistency here improves credibility and makes source tracing easier for the reader.