The study showed indirect taxes to be progressive as a result of higher tax rates applied to goods that are consumed more by richer households, such as alcohol. However, indirect taxes increase poverty, with the USD 1.25/day poverty headcount rate increasing by 3.6 points as a result of these taxes. When combined with emergency food aid, this was found to reduce poverty by 2.0 percentage points and the poverty gap by 1.4 percentage points (or 14.3%). The study also found that the RPSNP was better targeted than emergency food assistance. Meanwhile, wheat and kerosene subsidies were found to be progressive but not pro-poor, while electricity subsidies were found to be highly regressive.