Global Report on the Use of Alcohol Taxes 2025
Report
Background
The WHO report provides a global assessment of taxes applied to alcoholic beverages in 2024. It is an update to the first assessment undertaken in 2022. It qualitatively compares their design and provides estimates of standardized metrics to measure tax levels across countries. This assessment builds on and complements the World Health Organization (WHO) technical manual on alcohol tax policy and administration. It aims to inform policy decisions on alcohol excise taxation and support further research.
Alcohol consumption is one of the leading risk factors for noncommunicable diseases worldwide. It is also a risk factor for poor mental health, injury and poisoning.
While historically it has predominantly been used to raise revenue, excise taxes are an effective tool to decrease the affordability of alcoholic beverages and reduce population-level alcohol consumption and related harms. Taxation is even more effective when paired with other high-impact, population-wide alcohol policy solutions that limit alcohol availability and marketing.
Summary of Main Findings
Overall, excise taxes on alcoholic beverages remain underutilized and little progress has been made since 2022.
Countries should improve tax design and increase taxes more systematically so that alcoholic beverage products become less affordable and as a consequence the burden of alcohol consumption and its related harms are effectively reduced.
WHO’s policy recommendation on alcoholic beverage excise taxation
The World Health Organization recommends raising well-designed excise taxes on all alcoholic beverages as a core, cost-effective policy to protect public health, advance health equity, and strengthen public finances. Excise taxes are identified as one of the most effective tools to reduce alcohol affordability, lower population-level alcohol consumption, delay initiation, and prevent noncommunicable diseases, injuries, and premature deaths.
WHO advises that excise taxes should apply to all alcoholic beverages without exemptions, be designed as specific taxes – preferably based on alcohol content – and be automatically adjusted for inflation and income growth to prevent erosion over time.
The primary policy objective is to ensure that alcoholic beverages become less affordable over time, particularly as incomes rise.
The report emphasises that alcohol taxation delivers a “win–win–win” outcome: improved population health, increased government revenue, and greater health equity, as lower-income populations both bear a higher burden of alcohol harm and experience larger health gains from price increases. While the evidence and global mandates are strong, WHO concludes that alcohol excise taxes remain underused, too low, and poorly implemented in most countries, pointing to a substantial and urgent implementation gap.
Global implementation of excise tax policy
WHO’s assessment shows that excise taxation of alcoholic beverages is widely adopted but poorly applied in practice. While most countries levy national-level excise taxes, widespread exemptions – particularly for wine – reflect political and commercial compromises rather than public health evidence. These loopholes weaken policy effectiveness by encouraging substitution toward untaxed or lightly taxed products.
The WHO recommendation is unequivocal: excise taxes should apply to all alcoholic beverages wherever alcohol is legal. Yet the WHO European Region stands out as a global outlier, with nearly half of countries exempting wine from excise taxation. This pattern directly contradicts WHO guidance and limits the health and equity gains alcohol taxation has the potential to deliver.
At the same time, the universal taxation of spirits in countries that apply excise taxes demonstrates that comprehensive coverage is both feasible and already the norm. The remaining gaps are therefore not technical – but political.
Report findings:
As of July 2024, at least 167 countries applied national-level excise taxes to alcoholic beverages. Two countries applied no excise taxes despite permitting alcohol sales, while 12 countries banned the sale of alcoholic beverages altogether.
WHO recommends that excise taxes should apply to all alcoholic beverages, to avoid substitution and maximize public health impact. However, important gaps remain.
- Bahamas and Zimbabwe do not apply excise taxes to beer (Map 1).
- At least 25 countries exempt wine from excise taxation, the vast majority of them in the WHO European Region, where 42% of countries exempt wine (Map 2).
- These exemptions directly contradict WHO guidance and weaken the effectiveness of alcohol taxation by encouraging substitution toward untaxed products.
- By contrast, spirits are taxed by all countries that apply excise taxes, demonstrating that comprehensive coverage across beverage categories is both feasible and already widely implemented (Map 3).
- Coverage is high but incomplete: Most countries apply excise taxes to alcohol, but exemptions – especially for wine- remain widespread and undermine impact.
- WHO guidance is clear and violated: Excise taxes should apply to all alcoholic beverages where alcohol is legal, yet many countries maintain carve-outs that encourage substitution and benefit the alcohol industry.
- Comprehensive taxation is feasible: All countries with excise taxes tax spirits, demonstrating that full beverage coverage is already achievable.
Overview of the design of alcoholic beverage excise taxes across countries
WHO’s analysis shows that how alcohol taxes are designed is as important as whether they exist. Specific excise taxes – particularly those based on alcohol content – are more effective than ad valorem taxes because they target ethanol, raise the price of cheap alcohol, reduce substitution, and are less vulnerable to alcohol industry price manipulation.
However, most countries fail to apply these principles consistently. Minimum specific excise taxes, which are among the most powerful tools to raise the price floor and reduce heavy and high-risk alcohol use, are used by only a small minority of countries. Even fewer countries protect tax effectiveness over time through automatic adjustment for inflation and income growth, allowing alcohol to become more affordable as economies grow.
WHO concludes that current excise tax systems are structurally weak, reflecting political and commercial compromises rather than public health priorities. Closing these design gaps is essential to ensure alcohol taxation delivers on its potential for health, equity, and public revenue.
Report findings:
Volume-based specific excise taxes on alcoholic beverage products are the most commonly used system for beer and wine, while alcohol-content-based specific excise taxes are most commonly applied to spirits.
Around half of countries tax beer and spirits based on alcohol content, either through alcohol-content-based specific excise taxes or tiered excise rates by alcohol by volume (ABV).
WHO identifies specific excise taxes – particularly alcohol-content-based systems – as more effective than ad valorem taxes, because they raise the price of cheap alcohol, reduce substitution, and directly target ethanol, the harmful agent. However, minimum specific excise taxes remain rare:
- only 8% of countries apply them to beer,
- only 5% of countries apply them to wine, and
- only 4% of countries apply them to spirits.
Fewer than one in four countries with specific excise taxes automatically adjust rates for inflation or income growth, meaning that in most countries alcohol taxes lose real value over time, undermining their public health impact.
- Alcohol tax design matters: WHO identifies specific excise taxes, especially those based on alcohol content, as the most effective way to reduce alcohol affordability, consumption, and harm.
- Key design gaps persist: Minimum specific excise taxes and automatic inflation adjustment are rare, weakening the impact of existing alcohol tax systems.
- Alcohol industry-favourable structures dominate: Ad valorem taxes, exemptions, and non-health-based tiering remain widespread despite lacking public health justification.
ad valorem excise or a mixed excise.
Chapter 3 provides strong technical and normative backing for the argument that weak alcohol tax outcomes are not accidental – they are the result of poor design choices that align with industry interests. WHO’s guidance offers governments a clear blueprint to fix this.
The use of other indirect taxes and complementary pricing measures
Chapter 4 dismantles the idea that governments can sidestep alcohol excise taxes by relying on alternative fiscal tools. WHO is explicit: there are no shortcuts. Import duties, VAT, and pricing rules only work when they reinforce excise taxation.
Alcohol should not be treated like ordinary consumer goods. Pricing policies should consistently reflect that alcohol is a harmful, carcinogenic, dependence-producing product, and excise taxation is the policy tool designed to do exactly that.
Report findings:
Chapter 4 examines non-excise taxes and pricing measures used by some countries to influence the affordability of alcoholic beverages, and assesses their public health relevance. WHO makes clear that while these instruments can play a complementary role, they are not substitutes for well-designed excise taxes.
Some countries rely on import duties to increase alcohol prices, particularly small island states where most alcoholic beverages are imported. While import duties may reduce consumption in such contexts, WHO cautions that they are not best practice: they can distort markets, encourage substitution toward domestic products, conflict with trade agreements, and weaken long-term effectiveness.
Value-added taxes (VAT) and sales taxes are also widely applied, but WHO notes that their public health impact depends on design. Uniform VAT raises prices across all goods, while differentiated VAT can either increase or reduce alcohol affordability. From a population health perspective, WHO advises that alcohol should not benefit from reduced VAT rates, as this undermines the impact of excise taxation.
The chapter also discusses pricing policies such as minimum prices, bans on below-cost sales, limits on discounts, and limits on price promotions. WHO highlights that minimum prices based on alcohol content are particularly effective in targeting the cheapest alcohol and reducing heavy alcohol use. However, all such measures are explicitly framed as complementary tools that should reinforce – not replace – alcohol excise taxation.
Overall, Chapter 4 highlights a clear policy message: excise taxes are the cornerstone of effective alcohol pricing policy, while other taxes and pricing measures can only deliver public health benefits when they support, rather than dilute, strong excise tax systems.
Tax share
Chapter 5 exposes a structural imbalance: alcohol prices are shaped far more by corporate pricing strategies than by public interest taxation. Low tax shares mean governments are leaving both health promotion and public revenue potential on the table.
Chapter 5 shows that alcoholic beverages are systematically undertaxed worldwide, with excise taxes making up only a small share of retail prices. Globally, the median excise tax share is just 14% for beer and 22.5% for spirits, leaving alcohol highly affordable and industry margins largely untouched. WHO concludes that without substantially higher tax shares, alcohol taxation cannot deliver meaningful health, equity, or revenue gains.
Report findings:
Chapter 5 examines the tax share of alcoholic beverages – how much of the retail price is made up of excise taxes and total indirect taxes – and shows that alcohol is systematically undertaxed worldwide. WHO uses standardized indicators to compare countries, focusing on beer and spirits, which together account for the majority of global alcohol consumption.
WHO examined the share of taxes in the retail price for 330 ml of the most-sold beer brand, and 750 ml of the most-sold brand of the most-sold type of spirits. WHO selected beer and spirits as they represent the highest share of alcohol per capita consumption globally.
The findings are stark.
The global median excise tax share is low overall, at 14% for beer and 22.5% for spirits, with significant differences across regions. This is generally very similar to the median values identified in 2022, at 13.4% for beer and 24.8% for spirits.
This means that most of the retail price reflects production, distribution, and profit margins rather than public interest charges. Even when all indirect taxes are included, alcohol tax shares remain low in many regions, particularly in the Americas. These levels are far below what is needed to meaningfully reduce affordability and alcohol harm.’
Chapter 5 underscores that low tax shares signal insufficient policy ambition. WHO’s long-standing experience with tobacco taxation shows that higher tax shares are both feasible and effective in reducing consumption and harm. By contrast, the persistently low tax share for alcohol reveals a major missed opportunity for governments to protect health, advance equity, and mobilise domestic revenue.
Chapter 5 reinforces a central message of the report: without substantially higher excise tax shares, alcohol affordability will remain too high driving up alcohol harm and costs.
The average tax and price levels of alcoholic beverages
Chapter 6 reveals a fundamental gap in current alcohol taxation approaches: even where excise taxes exist, they are set too low to unlock their full potential. Low tax levels keep alcohol affordability too high and allow alcohol harm to persist at scale.
Chapter 6 confirms that alcohol taxation fails not only because of poor design, but because tax levels are simply too low. Without substantial increases in excise tax levels, alcohol affordability will remain too high and preventable harm will remain widespread.
Report findings:
Chapter 6 examines absolute tax and price levels for alcoholic beverages and finds that, across regions and income groups, excise tax levels remain low in both absolute and relative terms. Using purchasing power parity (PPP) to enable fair comparisons, WHO assesses the excise tax amount included in the retail price of beer and spirits – the two beverage categories accounting for most global alcohol consumption.
- Globally, a 330 ml bottle of beer costs on average PPP US$ 2.47, of which only PPP US$ 0.52 (about 21%) is excise tax.
- For spirits (750 ml), the average price is PPP US$ 22.67, with PPP US$ 6.44 (about 28%) coming from excise tax.
These figures reveal that even where alcohol is taxed, tax levels are far too low to substantially influence affordability, consumption, or harm.
Chapter 6 also shows wide variation across regions and income groups, but no consistent pattern indicating that higher-income countries systematically apply higher or more health-protective tax levels. WHO concludes that current tax levels are insufficient to offset the health, social, and economic burden caused by alcohol and underlines that meaningful public health impact requires significantly higher excise tax levels, not marginal or symbolic increases.
Changes in affordability of beer and spirits between 2022 and 2024
Chapter 7 exposes a central contradiction in alcohol policy: even where taxes exist, governments are allowing alcohol to become more affordable year after year. This is not an accident – it is the predictable result of failing to update tax policies in line with economic growth.
WHO shows that alcohol price increases alone are insufficient indicators. When incomes rise faster than taxes, alcohol affordability rises, and with alcohol consumption and harm. Affordability – not nominal price – is the decisive metric for public health oriented alcohol taxation.
Report findings:
Between 2022 and 2024, only a minority of countries made alcohol less affordable, while most allowed affordability to rise or stagnate. WHO identifies the failure to regularly adjust alcohol taxes in line with income growth as a central policy weakness.
Chapter 7 shows that most countries failed to reduce alcohol affordability between 2022 and 2024.
- Beer affordability fell in only 31% of countries.
- Spirits affordability fell in just 22%, while in the majority of countries alcohol became more affordable or showed no meaningful change.
WHO concludes that without regular, systematic tax increases – ideally through automatic adjustment mechanisms – economic growth will continue to make alcohol more affordable, undermining public health gains.
Revenue earmarking from excise taxes applied to alcoholic beverages
Chapter 8 confirms that alcohol taxation is a smart fiscal policy in addition to its potential as public health policy. But governments are failing to make proper and full use of their proven potential.
Chapter 8 exposes a missed opportunity: societies are forgoing revenue while absorbing and paying for alcohol harm and costs. Insufficient alcohol taxation shifts the financial burden of harm onto health systems, families, and communities.
Report findings:
Chapter 8 shows that alcohol excise taxes are an underused source of public revenue, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Despite alcohol’s substantial health, social, and economic costs, excise tax revenue remains modest relative to total government revenue in most countries. WHO concludes that better-designed and higher alcohol excise taxes could simultaneously prevent harm, reduce costs, and strengthen domestic resource mobilisation.
Of the 146 countries that apply excise taxes to alcoholic beverages and for which information on earmarking is available, 28 earmark such revenue for a variety of health programmes, including for universal health coverage, the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases, alcohol policy interventions and the promotion of physical activity.
Main takeaways and key considerations to guide policy-makers in improving alcohol excise taxes
WHO shows that effective principles for alcohol excise taxation are clear and globally applicable: tax all beverages, tax alcohol content, raise levels, and adjust regularly.
Chapter 9 closes the report with a clear message: alcohol taxation is one of the strongest tools governments have—and one they consistently fail to use.
Report findings:
Chapter 9 concludes that alcohol excise taxes are widely applied but poorly designed, too low, and inadequately updated. As a result, alcohol affordability remains too high, industry profits dominate alcohol prices, and preventable harm persists. WHO identifies strengthening alcohol excise taxation as an urgent and achievable policy priority.
The protection of people’s health should be a key consideration, particularly given the health, social and economic burden linked with alcohol consumption and its related harms.