Place

Restrictions imposed through licensing and regulation to limit alcohol availability can curb consumption by reducing the number, types and locations of alcohol outlets, and limiting hours and days of sale for both off-premise (e.g., liquor stores) and on-premise (e.g., bars and restaurants) sales. Privatization of alcohol sales, the process of giving the private sector the responsibility for selling alcohol, tends to result in significantly more off-premise outlets, higher prices for the consumer and increased rates of consumption compared to state government monopolies where the state is a market participant and sells the product. A major challenge in this literature is defining accessibility in a way that is relevant to both urban and rural areas and understanding contextual factors (e.g., socioeconomic factors, population, crime, type of product sold, type of outlet) that may contribute to the alcohol outlet environment.

Changes in Spirits Purchasing Behaviors After Privatization of Government Controlled Sales in Washington

Learn More

Survey Estimates of Changes in Alcohol Use Patterns Following the 2012 Privatization of the Washington Liquor Monopoly

Learn More

Washington State Spirits Privatization: How Satisfied Were Liquor Purchasers Before and After, and by Type of Retail Store in 2014?

Learn More

Opinions on the Privatization of Distilled-Spirits Sales in Washington State: Did Voters Change their Minds?

Learn More

The Spatio-Temporal Relationship Between Alcohol Outlets and Violence Before and After Privatization: A Natural Experiment, Seattle, WA 2010–2013

Learn More

Estimated Increase in Cross‐Border Purchases by Washington Residents Following Liquor Privatization and Implications for Alcohol Consumption Trends

Learn More
  1. Reply To: Effects of a Comprehensive Pro-Alcohol Policy in Washington State
    Kerr WC, Williams E, Ye Y, Subbaraman MS, Greenfield TK. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 54(1), 120-121.
    Date: 2019
  2. Changes in Spirits Purchasing Behaviors After Privatization of Government Controlled Sales in Washington
    Kerr WC, Ye Y, Greenfield TK. Drug and Alcohol Review. 38(3), 294-301.
    Date: 2019
  3. Survey Estimates of Changes in Alcohol Use Patterns Following the 2012 Privatization of the Washington Liquor Monopoly
    Kerr WC, Williams E, Ye Y, Subbaraman MS, Greenfield TK. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 53(4), 470-476.
    Date: 2018
  4. Estimating the Public Health Impact of Disbanding a Government Alcohol Monopoly: Application of New Methods to the Case of Sweden
    Stockwell T, Sherk A, Norström T, Angus C, Ramstedt M, Andréasson S, Makela P. BMC Public Health. 18(1), 1400-1416.
    Date: 2018
  5. Washington State Spirits Privatization: How Satisfied Were Liquor Purchasers Before and After, and by Type of Retail Store in 2014?
    Greenfield TK, Williams E, Kerr WC, Subbaraman MS, Ye Y. Substance Use & Misuse. 7-Jan.
    Date: 2017
  6. Comparison of Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol Policies in the Czech Republic and Norway
    Hnilicová H, Nome S, Dobiášová K, Zvolský M, Henriksen R, Tulupova E, Kmecová Z. Central European Journal of Public Health. 25(2), 145-151.
    Date: 2017
  7. Alcohol Retailing Systems: Private Versus Government Control in Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems: Evidence and Community-Based Initiatives
    Kerr WC, Barnett SBL. Preventing Alcohol-Related Problems: Evidence and community-based initiatives (pp. 137-150). Washington, DC: APHA Press.. .
    Date: 2017
  8. What Are the Public Health and Safety Benefits of the Swedish Government Alcohol Monopoly?
    Stockwell T, Norström T, Angus C, Sherk A, Ramstedt M, Andréasson S, Chikritzhs T, Gripenberg J, Holder H, Holmes JMäkelä P. Centre for Addictions Research of BC, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada. .
    Date: 2017
  9. Better to Own or to Regulate? The Case of Alcohol Distribution and Sales
    Zullo R. Administration & Society. 49(2), 190-211.
    Date: 2017
  10. Heavy Alcohol Use Among Suicide Decedents Relative to a Non-Suicide Comparison Group: Gender‐Specific Effects of Economic Contraction
    Kaplan MS, Huguet N, Caetano R, Giesbrecht N, Kerr WC, McFarland BH. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 40(7), 1501-1506.
    Date: 2016
  11. Unintended Impacts of Alcohol Restrictions on Alcohol and Other Drug Use in Indigenous Communities in Queensland (Australia)
    Robertson JA, Fitts MS, Clough AR. International Journal of Drug Policy. 41, 34-40.
    Date: 2016
  12. Opinions on the Privatization of Distilled-Spirits Sales in Washington State: Did Voters Change their Minds?
    Subbaraman MS, Kerr WC. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 77(4), 568-576.
    Date: 2016
  13. The Spatio-Temporal Relationship Between Alcohol Outlets and Violence Before and After Privatization: A Natural Experiment, Seattle, WA 2010–2013
    Tabb LP, Ballester L, Grubesic TH. Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Epidemiology. 19, 115-124.
    Date: 2016
  14. Estimated Increase in Cross‐Border Purchases by Washington Residents Following Liquor Privatization and Implications for Alcohol Consumption Trends
    Ye Y, Kerr WC. Addiction. 111(11), 1948-1953.
    Date: 2016
  15. Analysis of Price Changes in Washington Following the 2012 Liquor Privatization
    Kerr WC, Williams E, Greenfield TK. Alcohol and Alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire). 50(6), 654-660.
    Date: 2015
  16. Relationships Between Minimum Alcohol Pricing and Crime During the Partial Privatization of a Canadian Government Alcohol Monopoly
    Stockwell T, Zhao J, Marzell M, Gruenewald PJ, Macdonald S, Ponicki WR, Martin G. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 76(4), 628-634.
    Date: 2015
  17. Alcohol Consumption and Liver Cirrhosis Mortality After Lifting Ban on Beer Sales in Country with State Alcohol Monopoly
    Tyrfingsson T, Olafsson S, Bjornsson ES, Rafnsson V. European Journal of Public Health. 25(4), 729.
    Date: 2015
  18. The Pursuit of Exclusion Through Zonal Banning
    Palmer D, Warren I. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 47(3), 429-446.
    Date: 2014
  19. Long‐Term Trends in Alcohol Policy Attitudes in Norway
    Rossow I, Storvoll EE. Drug and Alcohol Review. 33(3), 220-226.
    Date: 2014
  20. Privatization in Pennsylvania: How Reforming the Pennsylvania Liquor Code Would Benefit the Commonwealth and Its Citizens
    Snyder E. Penn State Law Review. 119, 279-301.
    Date: 2014
Archives