Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | C | Contemporary Drug Problems

Division in the ranks: an analysis of alliances and dissension in the alcohol industry and advocacy communities.

Article Excerpt
Given the limited societal resources for the prevention and treatment of problems associated with alcohol consumption, the identification of strategies to maximize available political and financial capital is an important area for policy research. As part of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded study of the process of alcohol policy formation at the U.S. federal level, we asked industry representatives, public health advocates, and government officials to identify policy areas on which the different interest groups could potentially work together. This paper reports on what these respondents said.

When speaking about potential alcohol policies with the alcohol industry and public health advocates, we did not limit respondents to a single definition or type of policy. Discussions included global environmental control policies, which have as their goal an overall reduction in the level of consumption in the general population (policies such as reducing the hours of operation of liquor outlets, increasing alcohol taxes, and placing limits on advertising), as well as targeted policies intended to address specific groups or problem areas (like underage purchasing, drinking and driving, campus policies, and prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome). Part of our goal was to determine whether certain types of policies are off limits for consideration by one group or another.

Results address two questions that emerged from the data: First, is there consensus for particular policies within the respective communities (industry and public health)? Second, what are the areas of common ground between these communities that might represent fruitful avenues for pursuing potential public policies to reduce alcohol-related problems while allowing industry profits?

Methodology

Sample, data collection, and analytic approach are described elsewhere in this special issue (see Greenfield et al., 2004). Briefly, data presented here are based on 64 semistructured, mainly in-person interviews. Interviewers were doctoral (three) or master's level (two) researchers from the fields of sociology, psychology, and public health; the multidisciplinary research team included a political scientist as a consultant. Interview participants were chosen using a two-phase sampling strategy. The research team identified a core of prominent policy-community members who, when interviewed, were asked to suggest names of further contacts. This snowball sample grew in size and then leveled off in later interviews as people nominated tended to have been sampled already. A quota system was implemented to ensure a balanced representation from the industry and public health communities.

Interviews were transcribed and coded by a subset of the study team, using a code book that had been derived from the interview transcripts. The coding process involved first writing down the appropriate code(s) in the margin of the transcript, and second, using specialized ethnographic software (NUD*IST[R]) to electronically associate text passages with the relevant codes. About 10% of the data were double-coded. In addition to coding, analytic memos were written to describe emerging themes and to consider new questions to pursue in subsequent interviews. Two primary codes were used to identify passages of interviews that seemed relevant to the analysis of dissension and common ground in the policy community: fragmentation and common ground.

Results

An industry divided

The historical differences among the three broad segments of the alcohol production industry (i.e., beer, wine, and spirits) emerged in the interview data and are reflected in the positions taken on particular alcohol policies such as taxation and advertising. The lack of cohesion in the industry was introduced succinctly by a federal agency official who was being interviewed as a representative of his agency:

I'm not evading your question. I mean ... common ground between us and the industry. I'm not sure that question could be answered, because if you ask us and beer and wine you might get a different answer between us and distilled spirits. Or do you mean between us and broadcasters? Which industry are you talking about?

By ethanol volume, spirits have historically been more heavily taxed than beer and wine. Federal excise taxes on wine, beer, and spirits were increased in 1955 and again in 1991, and spirits felt an additional increase in 1985 (summarized in Hurst et al., 1997). The 1991 increase took the tax on spirits up to $13.50 per gallon, a 29% increase since the 1950s. The tax on beer was doubled in 1991 to 58 cents per gallon. The most recent rate increases were highest on table wines (529%), from 17 cents in 1955 to $1.07 per gallon in 1991. The distilled spirits industry has argued that disproportionate taxation of spirits is not a fair public policy--that "a drink is a drink." This is called the equivalency argument. Not only the distillers but also public health advocates in general supported that position in their interviews, as exemplified by the following comment from a former policy activist:

We were concerned about ... the whole issue of parity among alcohol products.... Trying to deal with this view that distilled spirits are not in and of themselves more dangerous than beer or wine.... Arguing for excise taxes to be equalized among alcohol content, as opposed to the privileged position that beer in particular now has, and the high taxes that distilled spirits have ...

And from...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!