1. The Norwegian Alcohol Act in a Context of Politics and Local Authorities Bergljot Baklien Øystein Skjælaaen SIRUS 2010

2. Content The law Law and reality The context

3. The Law Control as harm reduction - reduce drinking in risky situations Three target groups – Population – Licensees – Municipalities

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. Law and reality 2 Annual survey in the municipalities – Not enough inspections – Inspections reveal few violations – Violations rarely lead to sanctions

7. Area of tension Arenas Actors Decision making process Centralized authority vs local autonomy Drinking culture: formal vs informal norms Economical interests vs health aspects and formal norms Municipal decision making arena Bar/restaurant Serve or not serve Inspectors’ decision making The context

8. 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 norms The Alcohol Act Informal norms Drunkenness accepted/ expected

9. 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

10. 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”.

11. 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!

12. 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 influence the decision making of *the inspectors *the officials *the politicians

13. 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

14. 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.

15. Area of tension Arenas Actors Decision making process Centralized authority vs local autonomy Drinking culture: formal vs informal norms Economical interests vs health aspects and formal norms Municipal decision making arena Bar/restaurant Serve or not serve Inspectors’ decision making The context