No cheers for CDC
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently urged states to keep control of alcohol sales, saying private ownership increases liquor consumption.
After more than 20 years of trying, the academic literature has been unable to show consistent evidence of a negative social impact from privatization. In fact, many studies show improved social outcomes following privatization. The CDC's recent study even contradicts its own previous research that found no negative effects from privatization.
States around the nation are considering privatizing -- or unprivatizing -- sales of alcohol because of budget woes. It's critical that lawmakers in those states look closely at the methods of studies before giving them weight and creating laws that backfire.
Part of the problem with the CDC's analysis is that it bases its findings not on whether privatization causes any actual harm, but on whether privatization was associated with increased alcohol consumption. In fact, the CDC readily admits that it reviewed only three studies that looked at alcohol-related harm and that those studies showed no detrimental effects from privatization.
The CDC study relies on what is known as the Single Distribution Theory (SDT), which maintains that government should seek to reduce alcohol consumption across the entire population. SDT is a throwback to the prohibitionists' position that alcohol is bad because it is alcohol.
SDT advocates believe that, as alcohol consumption declines, drinkers who abuse alcohol will reduce their consumption more than will moderate drinkers. The hand-waving part is that policies that make it harder for everyone to buy alcohol will result in reduced social harms.
The problem with SDT is that it treats all alcohol consumers as if they are abusive drinkers and it assumes that abusive drinkers will be more responsive to alcohol policies than will moderate drinkers. However, not all drinkers are the same.
If a hardworking man has a beer or two when he gets home each evening, is the world a better place if higher prices force him to stop• What about a couple that splits a bottle of wine with dinner• There is nothing in the literature to suggest that government policy should work against moderate drinkers. In fact, since there are health benefits from moderate drinking, I would argue that government policy should not attempt to change such drinking behaviors.
What about the idea that abusive drinkers are more responsive to alcohol control policies• The National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, the government's real alcohol experts, recently sponsored a study conducted by researchers at Yale University that compared moderate drinkers to heavy drinkers. The researchers concluded that heavy drinkers were the least likely drinkers to respond to higher prices. This result directly contradicts the premise that the CDC relied on in making its anti-privatization recommendation.
If our goal is to reduce alcohol consumption, then it makes sense to outlaw alcohol in Pennsylvania and shut down all state stores. If our goal is to reduce social harms associated with alcohol consumption, there is no evidence that privatizing state stores will harm us. If our goal is to raise funds for state coffers, let's be open about that.
In deciding whether to privatize stores in Pennsylvania, the CDC recommendation is a recommendation worth ignoring.
Antony Davies is an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University and a senior scholar at George Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.