The Norwegian Alcohol Act in a Context of Politics and Local Authorities

Bergljot BaklienØystein Skjælaaen

SIRUS 2010

Content

• The law

• Law and reality

• The context

The Law

• Control as harm reduction- reduce drinking in risky situations

• Three target groups– Population– Licensees– Municipalities

The Data

• Studies by SIRUS on– Serving to intoxicated persons– Serving to persons under age– Administration of the Alcohol Act

• Data for the present study– Observation 1 (municipal officials, local politicians, inspectors)

– Observation 2 (inspections in two towns)

Law and reality 1

• Serving to obviously intoxicated persons– 80 % in Bergen

(eks. Lauritzen/Baklien 2007)

• Serving to persons under age – 50 % in Trondheim

(eks. Buvik/Baklien 2006)

Law and reality 2

• Annual survey in the municipalities– Not enough

inspections – Inspections reveal

few violations– Violations rarely lead

to sanctions

Area oftension

ArenasActorsDecision makingprocess

Centralized authority vs local autonomy

Drinking culture: formal vs informal norms

Economical interests vs health aspects and formal norms

Municipal decisionmaking arena

Bar/restaurant Serve or not serve

Inspectors’decision making

The context

Controlling a drinking culture

Norwegians drink “… at weekends and at parties, likely not in company with food, and frequently a little too much”. Norwegians get drunk!

The inspectors are supposed to react on situations that pass the informal control

Formal normsThe Alcohol Act

Informal norms Drunkenness accepted/ expected

It is accepted and sometimes even expected that the guests get drunk

When the formal norm is not supported by the informal social control, it gets tougher for the inspectors to carry out their tasks

The economic interests of the bar owner ………….fits together with the informal social control and the drinking culture

Centralized authority vs local autonomy

The municipality is responsible for the control.

The alcohol act does not specify: * At what hours the inspections should be done * Number of inspectors working together* Time spent on each place* What kind of training that should be given* How the reports should be like

The inspections varies between the municipalities. Several municipalities don’t have “control over the control”.

Local autonomy and economic considerations

To withdraw a license is a costly tool -threatening jobs, reducing the municipality’s tax revenue

The preventive effects of a suspension are uncertain and may eventually turn up some time in the future.

A suspension leads to less income for the establishment and for the municipality. Money counts!

The harm reducing and preventive effects of alcohol policy measures are often uncertain at the local level and may first be visible after some time.

The negative economic consequences are immediate and tangible.

The drinking culture can influencethe decision making of* the inspectors* the officials* the politicians

The law is violated to a large extent Violations are rarely revealed, and when a violation is reported, it rarely has any consequences

The goal attainment of the alcohol act depends on the decisions made by local politicians and municipal officials in 430 municipalities

The principle of municipal autonomy is strong

Economic considerations are important in in in the municipalities and among those selling or serving alcohol

The inspections is an item of expenditure

The Norwegian drinking culture is prevailing in the contexts the law is supposed to regulate.

The provisions regarding control and sanctions probably has an effect. But many places little is done and the efforts are inefficient. Explanations can be found in the social context where the law should function.

Area oftension

ArenasActorsDecision makingprocess

Centralized authority vs local autonomy

Drinking culture: formal vs informal norms

Economical interests vs health aspects and formal norms

Municipal decisionmaking arena

Bar/restaurant Serve or not serve

Inspectors’decision making

The context