In Australia, as in other countries, recent initiatives aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm have focused on the local community as the site of interventions, and in many cases have included local controls on alcohol availability as a key component. In this process, liquor licensing authorities – as the statutory agency primarily responsible for regulating alcohol availability – have been called upon to act as instruments of public health. Historically, however, their primary function has not been to promote public health, but rather to maintain orderly markets. Moreover, their power to intervene in market processes has in many instances been curtailed under deregulatory policies accompanying globalisation. Taken together, these trends generate a need for a theoretically-informed understanding of the role of liquor licensing bodies and other regulatory agencies in a context of locally-based initiatives aimed at reducing alcohol-related problems. This paper proposes a conceptual framework for meeting this need. Liquor regulatory systems are seen as agencies of social control mandated by the state. Three key components of these systems are identified: 1) laws and regulations governing the activities of liquor licensing authorities; 2) the structure and resourcing of agencies established to uphold the laws and regulations, and 3) practices through which decisions are reached by the licensing authorities. Each of these has influence independently of, but also in interaction with, each other. The initiation of local action focusing on alcohol problems generates a complex social field within which economic and political agencies, some operating at a purely local level, others at a national or even global level, compete to promote and defend their interests, and in which culturally ascribed beliefs and practices associated with drinking alcohol at the micro-social level are endorsed, challenged and/or defended. Within this field, liquor licensing authorities become agencies upon which competing claims are made. The processes involved can be analysed in terms of four phases: 1) agenda setting and problem definition; 2) specification of alternatives; 3) decision-making; 4) implementation. The components and processes outlined in the paper are illustrated with reference to instances of local action in northern Australia. The model proposed will serve, it is argued here, as a framework for more systematic comparative analysis of such local actions.
Read full abstract