Retain state-run alcohol retail stores (where applicable)
Retain state-run alcohol retail stores (where applicable)
Under this strategy, campuses and local and state governments support existing state control systems for wholesale and off-premises retail distribution whereby a state sets the prices of alcohol and gains profit/revenue directly rather than solely from taxation. Retention of the state system may reduce alcohol outlet density and pricing competition among commercial distributors.
-
Effectiveness: = Moderate effectiveness
-
Cost: $$ = Mid-range
-
Research Amount: **** = 5 or more longitudinal studies
-
Public Health Reach: Broad
-
Staffing Expertise Needed: Policy advocate
-
Target Population: All students
-
Research Population: General
Effectiveness ratings are based on estimated success in achieving targeted outcomes. Cost ratings are based on a consensus among research team members of the relative program and staff costs for adoption, implementation, and maintenance of a strategy. Actual costs will vary by institution, depending on size, existing programs, and other campus and community factors. Barriers to implementing a strategy include cost and opposition, among other factors. Public health reach refers to the number of students that a strategy affects. Strategies with a broad reach affect all students or a large group of students (e.g., all underage students); strategies with a focused reach affect individuals or small groups of students (e.g., sanctioned students). Research amount/quality refers to the number and design of studies.
- Review:
Hahn RA, Middleton JC, Elder R, Brewer R, Fielding J, Naimi TS, et al. Effects of alcohol retail privatization on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms: A Community Guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(4):418–27, 2012. - Recent study:
Seim K & Waldfogel J. Public monopoly and economic efficiency: Evidence from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board’s entry decisions. American Economic Review, 103(2):831–62, 2013.
References from 2019 update:
- Fell, J.C.; Scherer, M.; Thomas, S.; and Voas, R.B. Assessing the impact of twenty underage drinking laws. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 77(2):249–260, 2016.
- Kerr, W.C.; Williams, E.; and Greenfield, T.K. Analysis of price changes in Washington following the 2012 liquor privatization. Alcohol and Alcoholism 50(6):654–660, 2015.
- Romano, E.; Scherer, M.; Fell, J.; and Taylor, E. A comprehensive examination of U.S. laws enacted to reduce alcohol-related crashes among underage drivers. Journal of Safety Research 55:213–221, 2015.
- Scherer, M.; Fell, J.C.; Thomas, S.; and Voas, R.B. Effects of dram shop, responsible beverage service training, and state alcohol control laws on underage drinking driver fatal crash ratios. Traffic Injury Prevention 16:S59–S65, 2016.
- Tabb, L.P.; Ballester, L.; and Grubesic, T.H. The spatio-temporal relationship between alcohol outlets and violence before and after privatization: A natural experiment, Seattle, WA 2010–2013. Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology 19:115–124, 2016.
See related studies in References, which concluded that privatization of retail alcohol sales leads to increases in excessive alcohol consumption.
