the Swedes consume alcohol for just over 70 billion each year. From a socio-economic perspective, it would be great if the swedes could be made to put some of these money on other things. Can alcohol monopoly contribute to this? The answer is no. Contribute alcohol monopoly to a reduction in consumption? Very little speaks for it, and can be summarized in four observations.
• the Population in countries with alcohol monopolies drink more than the swedes, but this can be explained by that the countries have lower taxes on alcohol.
• In the states that abolished their monopoly, the consumption of alcohol is not increased, with few exceptions.
• Statistical studies of the abolition of the monopoly show that the monopoly konsumtionsdämpande effects are largely negligerbara.
• in addition, It is very easy to poke holes in the studies presented as proof that monopoly reduces consumer spending.
a study by Hahn and colleagues (2012) . the Study suffers from the devastating gaps in terms of statistical quality. At its height, it can be used as teaching aids on the country’s statistikutbildningar how bad it can go when the lobbies will find on the new ”statistical” evaluation methods. I will obviously take this up in my report.
Want to try to get a reasonable picture of the swedes ‘ alcohol consumption without a monopoly you need not go further than to Denmark. The danes are drinking 10 per cent more than the swedes, which can be explained by a lower Danish alcohol tax.
Andréasson, and it forskarkollektiv he is included in, therefore offers estimates of how much consumption can be expected to increase if the monopoly is abolished. Such estimates have little scientific importance since they can only be proved or disproved by abolition of the alcohol monopoly. The prophecy is that the consumption of alcohol is increasing very greatly and are based on self-contradictory assumptions, and without understanding of how policy instruments work in practice.
These accommodative fortune telling has Andréasson and his collective have sold to Folkhälsomyndigheten and the Systembolaget in good faith paid for the services because they lack the capacity to assess the sustainability of the reasonableness of the cost. The dealers of the State’s new clothes, of course, upset when I point out that the state in this case is naked, and call me extreme. Also, Gmel and colleagues (2016) gets his throw of the ladle, of the same vendors, when they come to similar conclusions.
Therefore, one should carefully evaluate if the desired effects exceed the value of a liberalised alcohol market. Advertising for tobacco, alcohol and gambling are covered by completely different legislation. The marknadsföringsinvesteringar we see in the gaming market today, we will never get to see for alcohol.
The previous monopolregleringen in the game forced the Swedish authorities and the government after the government sitting idly by for 15 years. Less than two months after the market omreglerats is now the government and authorities instead of on the offensive. This is the result of a smart regulation with competition, which I write about in the Swedish newspaper svenska Dagbladet.
Add these to my analysis reinforces one of my most important conclusions: alcohol, tobacco and gambling affects to a large extent the consumers themselves. In turn, this strengthens one of my most important suggestions: the state should to a greater extent assist all those who are stuck in their use and want to draw down or quit altogether.
This proposal, and more of my others, is in danger of drowning in the ideological struggle on the alkoholmonopolets be or not to be. My hope is that the sakpolitiska the discussion within the alcohol, tobacco and gambling may be given the opportunity to come up to the surface and contribute to an improved public health policy.
