Passing the burden - Sainsbury’s and their suppliers

AS micro students grappling with their revision on government intervention will come across the issue of who ends up paying for an indirect tax. The conventional view is that a supplier faced with an excise duty or other tax can consider passing it on by raising the final price to the consumer. Price elasticity of demand and supply come into play in deciding who eventually bears the burden of an indirect tax.

Here is a slight twist. Sainsbury’s has written an email to their suppliers of alcholic refreshment more or less insisting that they aborb the recent hike in duty announced in Darling’s budget. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph:

“Duty – April 2009” sent to its beer and cider suppliers prior to the Budget, J Sainsbury said that it would be “replacing” any lines on June 1 “that we cannot maintain margin on” following the announcement of an increase.”

In effect - they are telling them to aborb the tax or risk being delisted by the supermarket. Given Sainsbury’s monopsony power it is clear where the balance of influence lies in the relationship. Is Sainsbury’s decision asymmetric? Did they pass on the 2,5% decrease in VAT to their drinks department customers last Autumn?

More here