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