Real world examples for IB Economics

Background Information

In January 2024, the UK government introduced a ban on disposable vapes as part of its strategy to combat the rising incidence of youth vaping and to address significant environmental concerns. Disposable vapes, which have gained popularity due to their convenience and variety of flavors, have been increasingly used by minors. Statistics revealed that around five million disposable vapes were discarded weekly, contributing to environmental waste and pollution. This policy, supported by health officials and environmental advocates, aims to protect public health and reduce the environmental footprint of these single-use products.

Economic Theory Behind the Policy and Intended Impact

The economic theory underpinning this policy is rooted in the concept of negative externalities. Disposable vapes, while providing immediate utility to consumers, create significant social costs that are not reflected in their market price. These costs include health risks to young users and environmental damage from improper disposal. By banning disposable vapes, the government seeks to internalize these externalities, aligning private costs with social costs.

The intended impact of the ban is twofold. Firstly, from a public health perspective, the policy aims to reduce the accessibility and attractiveness of vaping to minors, thereby curbing the initiation of nicotine addiction among young people. Secondly, from an environmental standpoint, the ban is expected to significantly decrease the volume of electronic waste, particularly lithium batteries and plastic components, thus mitigating the pollution and hazards associated with improper disposal.

Unintended Consequences and Evaluations of Effectiveness

While the ban is well-intentioned, it may lead to several unintended consequences. One major concern is the potential rise of a black market for disposable vapes. Prohibition often drives demand underground, leading to unregulated and potentially more harmful products flooding the market. Additionally, adult smokers who have relied on disposable vapes as a cessation tool might find it more challenging to quit smoking, potentially leading to a resurgence in cigarette use.

Evaluating the effectiveness of the policy involves examining both its immediate and long-term impacts. Early indicators suggest that the ban may successfully reduce youth vaping rates, as the removal of easily accessible disposable vapes diminishes the likelihood of minors obtaining these products. Environmentally, the reduction in vape-related litter is expected to have a positive impact, although robust measures for monitoring and enforcement will be crucial to ensure compliance.

In conclusion, while the UK’s disposable vape ban addresses critical public health and environmental issues, its overall success will depend on effective enforcement and the provision of alternative support for adult smokers. Monitoring the policy’s impact over time and adjusting strategies accordingly will be essential to mitigate any negative consequences and achieve the intended public health and environmental benefits.