ArticleTobacco control2007
The invisible hand: how British American Tobacco precluded competition in Uzbekistan.
Article in Tobacco control, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The vector of the tobacco epidemic: tobacco industry practices in low and middle-income countries.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2012Pooled it
- Tobacco control in Nepal during a time of government turmoil (1960-2006).Tobacco control · 2020Article
- Memoranda of understanding: a tobacco industry strategy to undermine illicit tobacco trade policies.Tobacco control · 2019Article
- Analysis of British American Tobacco's questionable use of privilege and protected document claims at the Guildford Depository.Tobacco control · 2017Article
- 'A preferred consultant and partner to the Royal Government, NGOs, and the community': British American Tobacco's access to policy-makers in Cambodia.Global public health · 2017Article
- Investment incentives and the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: evidence from Zambia.Tobacco control · 2016Article
- Tobacco industry manipulation of tobacco excise and tobacco advertising policies in the Czech Republic: an analysis of tobacco industry documents.PLoS medicine · 2012Article
- British American Tobacco's partnership with Earthwatch Europe and its implications for public health.Global public health · 2012Review
- 'A major lobbying effort to change and unify the excise structure in six Central American countries': How British American Tobacco influenced tax and tariff rates in the Central American Common Market.Globalization and health · 2011Article
- A review of the impacts of tobacco industry privatisation: Implications for policy.Global public health · 2011Review
- Corporate Power and Social Policy: The Political Economy of the Transnational Tobacco Companies.Global social policy · 2009Article
- Transnational tobacco company influence on tax policy during privatization of a state monopoly: British American Tobacco and Uzbekistan.American journal of public health · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTobacco industry documents provide a unique opportunity to explore the role transnational corporations (TNCs) played in shaping the poor outcomes of privatisation in the former Soviet Union (FSU). This paper examines British American Tobacco's (BAT's) business conduct in Uzbekistan where large-scale smuggling of BAT's cigarettes, BAT's reversal of tobacco control legislation and its human rights abuses of tobacco farmers have been documented previously. This paper focuses, instead, on BAT's attitude to competition, compares BAT's conduct with international standards and assesses its influence on the privatisation process.
methodsAnalysis of BAT documents released through litigation.
resultsBAT secured sole negotiator status precluding the Uzbekistan government from initiating discussions with other parties. Recognising that a competitive tender would greatly increase the cost of investment, BAT went to great lengths to avoid one, ultimately securing President Karimov's support and negotiating a monopoly position in a closed deal. It simultaneously secured exclusion from the monopolies committee, ensuring freedom to set prices, on the basis of a spurious argument that competition would exist from imports. Other anticompetitive moves comprised including all three plants in the deal despite intending to close down two, exclusive dealing and implementing measures designed to prevent market entry by competitors. BAT also secured a large number of exemptions and privileges that further reduced the government's revenue both on a one-off and ongoing basis.
conclusionsBAT's corporate misbehaviour included a wide number of anticompetitive practices, contravened Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development's and BAT's own business standards on competition and restricted revenue arising from privatisation. This suggests that TNCs have contributed to the failure of privatisation in the FSU. Conducting open tenders and using enforceable codes to regulate corporate conduct would help deal with some of the problems identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.