|
There is an
unfortunate tendency in contemporary public policy debates to attempt to solve
long-standing and multi-dimensional problems with simple solutions that resemble
political slogans or sound-bites more than serious attempts to deal with
complicated issues. Whilst this tendency is found across the policy spectrum it
is particularly obvious in policy debates that involve advertising and health.
Michael Prowse exhibits this tendency all too clearly in his completely
unsubstantiated claim that the answer to the UK’s ‘binge drinking’ problem is to
‘ban alcohol advertising and sharply raise taxes on products aimed at the young’
(18/19 October, 2003)
Rather than
simply asserting the more advertising=greater consumption theories from Vance
Packard’s 1956 The Hidden Persuaders, Prowse might wish to look at the serious
econometric work that has been done on this issue in the UK over the last forty
years. In this instance, one example is worth a thousand theories.
Whether one
looks at the work of McGuiness, who examined drink demand in the UK from
1956-1975, or the work in the 1980’s of my colleague Mike Waterson, or finally
the studies done from 1981 through 2003 by Martyn Duffy of the University of
Manchester, there is a consensus that there is generally no statistically
significant association between drink advertising and
consumption.
This lack of
connection between advertising and demand is illustrated in a series of changes
in the UK drinks market during the 1970’s and 80’s. From 1978 to 1987 beer
advertising rose by over 80% while beer consumption fell by 14%. Between 1978
and 1987 advertising for spirits increased by 70% while sales fell by 4%. During
the same period advertising fell in the wine market by 26% while sales increased
by 65%.
Comparative
studies of the UK with France, Germany and the Netherlands from 1971-1989 (Calfee
and Scheraga) find similar patterns with advertising not having a statistically
significant impact on consumption, and indeed, in all but one country,
consumption peaking even while advertising continued to increase. Further,
recent evidence from the US, which looks exclusively at young drinkers, (Roper
Youth Report, 2003) suggests that only 6% of teenagers reported advertising as
an influence in their decision to drink.
Equally
compelling social science evidence comes from those jurisdictions that have
followed Prowse’s policy prescription and instituted drinks advertising bans.
Canada, for instance, has seen two provinces,
British
Columbia
and Saskatchewan,
try advertising
bans. In both instances, the bans had no impact on alcohol consumption. In
Saskatchewan
where the ban was in force for 58 years, a six year study following its lifting
indicated no overall increase in alcohol consumption once advertising resumed.
Lest one think that North American drinkers and advertisers are unique, a
similar study of Sweden’s advertising ban from 1979-1989 concluded that the ban
ad little or no effect on the Swedish drinks market.
Prowse’s other
policy option- sharply higher alcohol taxes to discourage young drinkers- is
equally at odds with the empirical evidence. According to data from the US
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (2000), there is no correlation between
underage drinking rates and state alcohol tax rates. If higher alcohol taxes
discourage youth drinkers, than states with dramatically higher tax rates like
New York and Florida should have lower underage drinking rates, but this is not
the case.
Calls for
advertising bans and higher duties on alcohol are doubly unfortunate in that not
only do they lack rigourous and consistent evidence and show little promise of
efficacy, but they tend to divert attention away from good public policy with
respect to underage drinking. By focusing so much attention on advertising bans
and added duties, promising new approaches to youth alcohol use such as the
determinants of health model with its focus on such protective factors for
substance abuse as keeping young people in school, reducing income disparities,
supporting stable home environments, and addressing issue of self-esteem and
stress, fall off the policy menu. And that is too great a price to pay for bad
theories.
John Luik, a health policy analyst, is co-author with Mike Waterson, of
Advertising and Markets |
