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