Robert --
I think the "1984" reference was to my "Alcohol monopolies in the US: challenges and opportunities", Journal of Public Health Policy 8:509-530, 1987. Though I suppose it could have been to "The recent history of alcohol controls: an international perspective", pp. 27-33 in Harold Holder & Jerome Hallan, eds., Control issues in Alcohol Abuse Prevention, Chapel Hill, NC: Human Ecology Institute, 1984. From that era, there's also an issue of Contemporary Drug Problems on "The formulation of state alcohol monopolies and controls: case studies in five nations", vol. 12, pp. 1-158, 1985 (I'm only responsible for the editor' s introduction on that).
Let me add that I enjoyed and found very useful your article on the British Columbia history. It made me want to read your book, Demon rum or easy money: government control of liquor in British Columbia from prohibition to privatization (Don Mills ON: Carleton UP, 1991).
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert A. Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: den 28 oktober 1999 19:27
Subject: Re: state liquor monopolies
>Hello,
>Below is an reference on the privatization of Alberta's liquor stores. My
>piece on British Columbia in Warsh, _Drink in Canada: Historical Essays_,
>takes the topic to 1988. As of this week BC's liquor stores now accept
>credit cards.
>
>Incidentally, could someone refresh me on Robin Room's 1984 piece.
>
>Robert Campbell
>ON ALBERTA:
>
>Brownsey, Keith. Selling the Store: Privatizing Alberta's Liquor Stores. In
>_Public Adminstration and Policy: Governing in Challenging Times, ed. Martin
>W. Westmacott and Hugh P. Mellon, 117-125. Scarborough: Prentice Hall, 1999.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Room <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: October 27, 1999 11:08 AM
>Subject: state liquor monopolies
>
>
>Austin and Jim --
> There has not been a good account of changes in the US systems. It
>appears that Michigan, Montana, West Virginia, and Iowa, as well as Ohio,
>have completely or nearly completely demonopolized at the retail level,
>while many "control [=monopoly] states" and provinces have iincreased the
>number of "agency stores", operated privately under contract, alongside the
>state-operated stores into "agency stores", operated privately under
>contract (information from NABCA Annual Report for 1998 -- reference below).
>The "big bangs" which the literature has focused on were (1) the elimination
>of the Iowa retail monopoly first in wine and then in spirits, the effects
>of which have been exhaustively and contradictorily studies by Mulford &
>Fitzgerald on one side and Holder & Wagenaar on the other, (2) the
>elimination of the Alberta retail monopoly in 1995 -- not yet studied well
>in terms of its effects. In both cases, the state/province kept monopoly
>control of the wholesale level. Although most states which have privatized
>retail sales have kept the monopoly at the wholesale level, Montana and
>Michigan appear to have abandoned their wholesale monopoly at the wholesale
>level, according to the NABC annual report. (The wholesale level matters
>for protecting revenue, while the retail level is mostly what matters for
>public health and order). (Holder and Wagenaar also studied wine
>demonopolization in other states, but not demonopolization of spirits.)
> The 600+ page document: Timo Kortteinen, ed., State Monopolies and
>Alcohol Prevention; Helsinki: Social Research Institute on Alcohol Studies,
>Report No. 181, 1989 includes a long report by Holder and Janes (pp.
>355-460) covering US monopolies state by state as of about 1987.
> The papers in a Contemporary Drug Problems issue, vol. 20: 165-322, 1993
>from a conference we held in Toronto include three relevant to north
>America, by Holder, Goodstadt & Flynn, and myself.
> There has been a lot of stuff on the fate of the Nordic monopolies in
>the run-up to joining the EU or EAA and since then. Basically, the EU
>forced privatization of the production and wholesale levels, but the
>north-of-the-Baltic states were allowed to keep their retail monopolies, on
>the grounds of their public health/order purpose. A good recent account of
>all this is Harold Holder et al., European Integration and Nordic Alcohol
>Policies; Aldershot, UK, etc.: Ashgate, 1998.
> Then there's a recent review article, M Her et al., Privatizing alcohol
>sales and alcohol consumption: evidence and implications, Addiction
>94:1125-1139, 1999, with a series of comments and a rejoinder on pp.
>1140-1153. Included is some back and forth on the meaning of the Alberta
>developments. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the authors.)
> Two publications which are useful concerning current status of the
>"control states" are 1998 Annual Report, National Alcoholic Beverage Control
>Association, and 1998 Annual Surveys, also published by NABCA. NABCA's
>address is 4216 King St. West, Alexandria VA 22302-1507, tel. 703-578 4200,
>fax 703-820 3551.
> Below is an abstract which turned up on ETOH which might be useful.
> Lastly, I've attached (in Word) a presentation I gave at a recent
>meeting of Nordic and north American monopolies. It takes note of two
>potential new leases on life for retail monpolies -- taking over retail
>sales of cigarettes and of marijuana (signatures are currently being
>collected on initiatives in Oregon and Washington states which would assign
>them the latter function).
> -- Robin
>
>Hey, J.C. Effects of the Pennsylvania state monopoly on sales of liquor and
>wine. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(5):1698-A, 1990.
> This study was constructed to examine the effect of the Pennsylvania
>monopoly system of alcoholic beverage control on the use and abuse of liquor
>and wine. The proposed models of liquor and wine consumption and of alcohol
>abuse reflect the influence of both economic and sociodemographic factors.
>The state store system was found to have a negative influence on the
>consumption of liquor. Another important finding was that eastern and
>western regions of the state differ markedly in patterns of alcohol use;
>consumption has been much lower in counties west of the Susquehanna River.
>Pennsylvania's average low consumption rates may be explained in part by
>historical and cultural influences that are complemented by the state store
>system. The low rates also reflect differences between consumption and
>apparent consumption that arise when purchases are made in adjoining states.
>This study found statistically significant evidence that such cross- border
>purchases are made. These results corroborate other researchers' efforts
>which find monopoly systems to exert a small but significant restraining
>effect in consumption.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jim baumohl <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: den 27 oktober 1999 17:50
>Subject: Re: state liquor monopolies
>
>
>>don't know of any post-room articles, but robin may. the situation in
>>pennsylvania, the largest wholesale purchaser of wine in the world, i
>>believe (with the province of quebec second if memory serves), remains
>>essentially unchanged in spite of attempts by republican governors to
>>privatize. the state holds wholesale and retail monopolies on wine and
>>spirits; the sale of beer is permitted in case lots only at "beer stores,"
>>and licensed premises may sell 6-packs for take out. state liquor stores
>>and beer stores are closed on sunday, and the full-page ads of discounters
>>in new jersey and delaware continue to appear in the sunday papers. the
>>philly inquirer wine critic continues to take shots at the state system on
>>a regular basis.
>>
>>as a former wine merchant, i could offer some remarks about how the state
>>system works for consumers in pennsylavnia, but that's not what was
>requested!
>>
>>jb
>>
>>
>At 02:30 PM 10/26/99 -0400, Austin Kerr wrote:
>
>
>I am trying to find out what the pattern was with the state government
>liquor monopolies in the last 10 years or so. I have read Robin Room's very
>informative article that brings the subject up to date through the
>mid-1980s, but I cannot find anything that updates that pattern over the
>last decade.
>
>Here in Ohio the state policy went from state-operated package liquor stores
>to privately operated package liquor stores. My guess is that Ohio's action
>was part of a larger pattern of institutional change, but my checking with
>standard reference sources reveals no article on the subject.
>
>Does any subscriber know of an article on this subject post Room ? If not,
>do you know of other states that have done the same as Ohio?
>
>K. Austin Kerr Professor of History, Ohio State University Columbus Ohio
>43210
>voice: 614-292-2613 fax: 614-292-2282 e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>http://people.history.ohio-state.edu/kerr.htm
|
