I N T E R N A T I O N A L

C E N T E R

F O R

ICAP REPORTS 18

A L C O H O L

P O L I C I E S

MAY 2006

ALCOHOL TAXATION
I.
INTRODUCTION: PERSPECTIVES ON AND PURPOSES OF TAXATION
Governments have used their political authority to raise revenue throughout history to finance the goals
of governmentto protect individual freedoms and to promote the well-being of society as a whole.
This revenue is generally obtained through taxes which shift resources from private individuals and
businesses to the government. These funds are used to carry out the functions of government such as:
military defense, enforcement of public order, construction of infrastructure, education, health care,
pensions for the elderly, and public services, e.g., transport and resource management. There are
various types of taxes, e.g., income, corporation, social security / retirement, property, inheritance,
value-added, sales, and excise, to name some of the major categories. This report will examine the
concept of an excise tax on beverage alcohol.
II.
EXCISE TAXES
Excise taxes are indirect taxes on the sale or use of specific products or transactions. The tax is often
passed on to people and organizations that purchase particular products or services. A tax based on
the presence of alcohol in a product is an excise tax; other examples of excise on products include
tobacco, energy (oil and gas taxes), and waste (trash containers). Unlike value-added taxes and sales
taxes, excise tax is usually not a function of the value of the product being taxed, but rather a fixed rate
tax or specific tax, expressed as a monetary amount per quantity, not value, of the product. For example, in the United States, the federal government imposes an excise tax of US$ 0.184 per US gallon
of gasoline regardless of the retail value of the gasoline.1 Exceptions to this general rule exist in
cases where a government taxes either the value of the product or both the quantity and the value. For
example, a mixed systeman ad valorem tax and a specific taxes on the alcohol contentis in effect
in Thailand (the producer or importer pays whichever is the higher tax rate). A country by country
comparison of taxes on beverage alcohol can be found in section VI.
Excise taxes are typically imposed at the point of production, importation or when released from
bond (i.e., a customs-controlled warehouse for the retention of dutiable goods), though in some
instances, at the point of sale. Excise taxes can be waived or refunded on goods being exported, so as
to encourage exports, though they often are re-imposed upon importation to another country at the
prevailing rate of the importing country. International travelers often benefit from having excise taxes
waived for imports within a set maximum allowance for personal use. Smuggling or cross-boarder
purchases which exceed the personal allowance can cause both public health and economic problems
where there are substantial differences in tax, or price in general, across boarders (see below, section
V.5)
Excises on particular commodities are sometimes hypothecated, that is pledged for a particular purpose rather than for general revenue. For example, a fuel excise is sometimes used to pay for public
1

See, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p510/ar02.html#d0e1774 or http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

(accessed 14 October 2005).

transportation, especially to build roads, bridges and mass transit, and for the protection of the environment. Similar approaches are sometimes sought for excise taxes on beverage alcohol in which the
tax is used to pay for health care, alcohol abuse preventive programs or treatment for alcohol addiction.
Excise taxes usually have one of two purposes, either to raise revenue (both general and/or hypothecated) and/or to discourage particular behavior. Taxes such as those on fuel, alcohol and tobacco are
often justified on both grounds.
When used to modify consumption patterns, excise taxes, as well as variations in excise tax rates, are
aimed at limiting the use of products and services (for example, carbon fuel taxes have been introduced as a means of conservation or limiting harm to the environment) or at discouraging their use or
misuse on the basis that they could potentially pose a risk to someones health (for example, cigarettes). Beverage alcohol excise taxes are used both to discourage consumption, relative to nonalcoholic drinks, and to modify drinking patterns, relative to alcohol products with lower percentage
of alcohol by volume.
Economists suggest that the optimal revenue raising taxes should be levied on items with an inelastic
demand, while behavior altering taxes should be levied where demand is elastic (see below, section
III.B for discussion on elasticity).
Excise taxes are considered a regressive2 form of taxation because everyone, regardless of income
level, pays the same monetary amount for the product or service. The burden of such excise taxes
typically falls more heavily on the lower-income population who pay a larger percentage of their
income than the higher-income population. Income and property taxes, on the other hand, are progressive, rates rising progressively as income or values increase.
In the US, much of the research literature on levels of excise taxation on beverage alcohol notes that
excise tax rates are infrequently increased, not indexed to inflation, and thus over time the result is an
overall decline in revenue value which the tax generates. This situation is not universal; in some
jurisdictions there are regular adjustment changes in excise tax rates on beverage alcohol.
III.
PERSPECTIVES ON TAXING ALCOHOL
In most societies, beverage alcohol beer, cider, wine and distilled spirits is subject to taxation,
mostly as an excise tax. There are other taxes paid associated with beverage alcohol manufacture and
consumption e.g., income taxes, employment taxes, sales taxes, but these will not be addressed in this
report.
The main purpose of taxation is to generate general government revenue. In many countries, alcohol is
an important source for raising government revenue and has long been an established target for taxation. Excise taxes are levied by national, state or local governments, and often in combination with
each other. The actual costs of excise taxes are generally passed along to consumers in the form of
higher prices, putting downward pressure on consumer demand. Who bears the cost of the tax is
2

Definitions: regressive taxa tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from highincome groups; progressive taxa tax that takes a larger percentage of income from high-income groups than from
low-income groups.

determined by the elasticity of the good. For more inelastic goods, like cigarettes and gasoline, almost
all of the tax is paid by the consumer. For beverage alcohol, there is considerable debate regarding
the elasticity between alcohol and non-alcohol drink sectors as well as between categories within the
beverage alcohol sector (e.g., beer, cider, wine, intermediate products3 and spirits).
However, governments have also use taxes on beverage alcohol for several other purposes: to attempt
to reduce abuse and harm by making alcohol less accessible; to create trade barriers; to encourage the
purchase of domestic over imported products.4 The effectiveness of taxation and pricing policies as
public health and social tools for reducing consumption, abuse and problems has been much debated
and can be considered from several perspectives.
A. An Economic View
The positive contribution of beverage alcohol to society takes a number of forms, some quantifiable,
others less so. Some of these benefits are economic in nature, while others have a direct impact on
society and health.5
Economic and social benefits around alcohol include those derived from direct and indirect
employment in its manufacture and distribution.
The retail, advertising, tourism and hospitality industries are a significant source of employment
and revenue.
Local production has an important economic impact in both developed and developing countries,
particularly in rural areas.
Alcohol contributes strongly to government revenue in the form of taxation and excise duty and
represents an important component of the balance of trade in many countries. Where alcohol retail
is controlled through state-run monopolies, sales are a source of net profit for the government.
B. Price Elasticity of Demand
In economics, price elasticity of demand is a measure of responsiveness to the quantity demanded of a
good to its price. Price elasticity is measured as the percentage change in quantity demanded that
occurs in response to a percentage change in price (price elasticity = percentage change in demand /
change in price).
Some features of price elasticity are:
Price elasticity is negative for almost all goods; consumers tend to purchase more of a product at
lower prices; less of a product at higher prices.
Elasticity of less that -1.0 indicates that demand is relatively responsive to changes in price
(price-elastic).
Elasticity in the range of -1.0 and zero indicates that demand is relatively unresponsive (priceinelastic).
For example, if, in response to a 10% fall in the price of a good, the quantity demanded increases by
3

The term intermediate products normally refers to beverage alcohol products with an ABV of at least 1.2% but no
more than 22%. The difference between wine and intermediate products concerns the way in which the alcohol it
contains has been obtained. In the case of wine, the alcohol has been obtained exclusively through natural fermentation. In the case of intermediate products, alcohol has been added to that which is obtained through natural fermentation. Intermediate products include port, sherry and vermouth.
4
Manning et al., 1995; Kenkel & Manning, 1996; Hurst et al., 1997; Lehto, 1997; Farrell et al., 2003; Kuo et al., 2003.
5
ICAP, 2004.

20%, the price elasticity of demand would be -2, i.e., the product is said to be price-elastic. In
general, a fall in the price of a good is expected to increase the quantity demanded, so the price elasticity of demand is negative as above.
There is considerable debate among researchers whether higher prices in beverage alcohol, either
through price differences or taxes, result in a change in drinking consumption patterns, particularly for
certain target at-risk populations, e.g., young people or populations with harmful patterns of drinking.
In general, studies have shown that price elasticity depends on a number of factors, including types of
beverage alcohol, drinking cultures, changes in disposable income, target populations, and long- or
short-term effects.6
C. Public Health View
The rationale behind increasing taxation on alcohol as a policy measure is relatively simpleby
making beverage alcohol more expensive, per capita consumption will be decreased and with it the
incidence of problems. The public health perspective, which is not necessarily concerned with
economic efficiency or corporate profitability, sees curbing alcohol consumption as a means of preventing a range of social and health problems and reducing the alcohol-related burden on society.
With this reasoning in mind, many governments implement a range of measures limiting the physical
availability7 and economic accessibility of alcohol.
Taxation is used as a means to limit the demand for alcohol by raising its cost, making it less accessible to consumers.8 The effectiveness of taxation as a public health and social tool for reducing
consumption, abuse and problems has been much debated. There is evidence that increasing the price
of alcohol limits its purchase by some people.9 Public health researchers are particularly interested in
such a population level strategy when per capita reductions in alcohol consumption also can be shown
to reduce alcohol-related consequences, both chronic (e.g., liver cirrhosis) and acute (e.g., violence
and injuries) problems.
D. Social Costs: External vs. Private Costs and Implications for Taxation
An alternative economic perspective on the appropriate level of taxation focuses on the social costs
and distinguishes between external costs of alcohol consumption that are shouldered by society
broadly defined and those internal (or private) costs that are borne by the consumer alone. Some
commentators take the view that both should be considered as part of the public policy debate. Others
view the former as the true focus because individuals, who are either negatively or beneficially
affected, already properly internalize these considerations in their decision whether or not to drink
alcohol and through their patterns of drinking.
The potential harm related to alcohol consumption can cover a range of economic, social and health
outcomes both for those who drink and for others around them. Irresponsible, excessive or abusive
drinking patterns contribute to social costs through lost productivity, absenteeism and poor workplace
performance, as well as to the cost of healthcare for those injured as a direct or indirect result of their
own or others drinking. In general, negative outcomes are closely linked with high-risk and excessive
drinking patterns.
6

Adian, M., 2001.

Antalova & Martinic, 2005.
8
Godfrey, 1989; sterberg, 1995; Chaloupka et al., 2002.
9
Babor et al., 2003.
7

E. Industry Views
Tax revenues from excise and other taxes on the production and sale of beverage alcohol can be an
important source of government revenue in many countries. For example in the former Soviet Union,
excise taxes on beverage alcohol accounted for between 12-14% of all state revenue.10 The beverage
alcohol industry contributes to local and central government revenue in many ways: excise duties,
sales tax / VAT, corporation tax, income tax and social security.
In 2002, beverage alcohol generated about 24 billion euros in excise duties alone for national governments in the European Union.11 The financial revenues for European governments arising from the
production and sale of beer, i.e., taxes paid by breweries, beer consumers and employees together,
total around 38 billion euros a year, including 19 billion euros in VAT and 10.5 billion euros in excise
duties. This represents more than the total annual government expenditure of countries such as Finland
or Poland (estimated at around 34 billion euros).12 In the U.S. the beverage alcohol industry pays
over $21 billion in direct taxes annually including excise taxes, sales taxes and licensing fees.13
This is in addition to taxes paid by all businesses, such as corporate and payroll taxes.
F. Equivalence explored
There are often different excise tax rates for different types of beverage alcohol productsbeer, wine
(still and sparkling) and spirits, as well as intermediate products. This point is relevant in many parts
of the world as excise tax rates vary considerably among products based on the concentration of
alcohol measured by volume (abv) or on the ingredients or process used in producing the beverage.
This paper does not attempt to take a position on this issue, but to highlight different points of view.
Where different beverage alcohol products are taxed at different rates per volume of pure ethanol,
excise taxes are often considerably higher on distilled spirits. For example in the US, excise taxes on
spirits are almost three times the rate of tax on still wine and over two times the rate on beer. The
variation in excise rates is often justified on the basis that different beverages are served in different
ways and that the pattern in which they are consumed varies as well. Distillers suggest that this is
discriminatory as ethanol is common to all these beverages.14
The WHO Status Report on Alcohol Policy notes that one of the factors explaining the higher tax rates
on spirits is that production costs per litre of pure alcohol are higher for making wine and beer than
distilled spirits.15 Furthermore, WHO notes that in some countries it is official policy of the pricing
system to steer people towards a particular type of low-alcohol or non-alcoholic beverage, in order to
substantially reduce risky or high blood alcohol levels.16

10

National Research Council, 1997. See also: Babor et al, 2003, pp 101-102 for a review of different national and
local governments dependence on alcohol tax for general government revenue.
11
European Commission, 2003 & 2004.
12
Ernst & Young, 2005.
13
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, 2003
14
A number of countries around the world have issued definitions of standard drinks or units, equal to a specified
amount of pure ethanol expressed in grams. The strengths of different types of beverage alcohol vary significantly
even within a category of beverage, but using standard measures allows for some uniformity. Thus, in terms of the
alcohol it contains, a standard unit will be the same regardless of whether it is contains wine, beer, distilled spirits, or a
mix of any of these beverages. (See ICAP, 2005, modules on Drinking Guidelines and Standard Drinks.)
15
WHO, 2004.
16
WHO, 2004; Holder et al., 1998.

IV.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: IMPACT ON MISUSE AND PROBLEM BEHAVIOR
There is evidence that taxation does not effectively target those who abuse alcohol or who have risky
drinking patterns. Likewise, the evidence does not equivocally suggest that these individuals will
universally respond to changes in pricing.17 Like any policy measure that addresses the general
population, taxation is a blunt tool and does not differentiate between problematic and unproblematic
drinking patterns. Perhaps the most compelling evidence against taxation as an effective policy
measure against abuse comes from countries where taxation rates have traditionally been high.18 In
many of these, such as the Nordic countries or those in Eastern Europe, alcohol consumption and
harmful drinking patterns remain high.19 Binge drinking continues as the predominant pattern of
drinking, bringing with it a range of health and social harms for adults, as well as for young people.20
As a result, while increased taxation may reduce the purchase and consumption of commercially
produced alcohol, it may also contribute to harmful drinking patterns of other beverage types, both licit
and illicit.21 A shift by consumers towards non-commercial alcohol beverages has also been shown to
contribute to an increase in illicit trade, often associated with organized crime and a new range of
social problems.22 Furthermore, a government hoping to increase its revenue through taxation of
beverage alcohol may actually see revenue fall as non-taxed beverages are substituted for those that
are taxed.23
V.

EFFECTS ON OVERALL CONSUMPTION, TARGETED GROUPS AND

RISKY BEHAVIOR:
The relationship of taxes to the consumption of beverage alcohol is a complex issue that has been
extensively studied, however the scientific research has reached mixed and inconsistent findings.
Important differences have been identified in how taxes affect consumption of different types of
products, in different countries, and even different groups of drinkers within the same country. While
some studies claim to show that increases in price caused by increased taxation result in decreases in
alcohol consumption by some people,24 other research has not supported such findings.25 Recent
research carried out using Swedish data demonstrates that beverage alcohol is not a simple, or single
commodity, but rather a complex group of products presenting consumers with different choices with
widely varying attributes, at different quality points, and different price points. As a complex product,
consumers of beverage alcohol may make substitutions between beverages, between brands, and
between quality based on price.26 The following are a few areas in which claims have been made
about the relationship between taxation and drinking patterns.
1. Alcohol-impaired driving
A large portion of the external social costs of alcohol misuse stems from alcohol-impaired driving.
Rehm estimates that 40 percent of the overall alcohol-attributable burden of disease is from acute
17

Manning et al., 1995; Kenkel, 1996; Heyman, 1996, 2000.

sterberg & Karlsson, 2003.
19
Hibell, 2000; Norstrm 2001; sterberg & Karlsson, 2003.
20
Hibell, 2000; Norstrm, 2002.
21
Gruenewald & Treno 2000.
22
Leifman, 2001; Haworth & Simpson, 2003.
23
Popham, Schmidt & DeLint, 1975.
24
Grossman, et al., 1994; Babor, et al., 2003; Chaloupka, 2003
25
Dee, 1999.
26
Greunewald, et al., 2006
18

conditions, particularly unintentional injuries and largely from road crashes.27 This finding is used to
assert that higher prices through taxation could contribute to a decline in alcohol-impaired driving by
reducing overall per capita consumption. Certain early studies from the US suggested that higher taxes
on beer reduced driving fatalities.28 Other studies, however, have consistently found no meaningful
impact from beer price increases on reducing alcohol-impaired driving in adults or teens.29
In a study attributing social costs to alcohol abuse and attempting to identify optimal tax rates for
alcohol, Kenkel suggest that a reduction in drunk driving would remove a considerable justification
for higher taxes under social cost theories. Stricter drink driving laws, he asserts, deserves consideration as a policy alternative to higher taxes on alcohol.30
2. Non-commercial alcohol
Non-commercial alcohol goes by many names: moonshine, bootlegged, local, illicit, or unrecorded
alcohol. It includes alcohol beverages that are not produced within a commercial setting and are
therefore not reflected in official statistics, such as sales figures. These beverages are largely outside
of government control and as a result are not taxed. Finally, non-commercial alcohol is often not
subject to the same standards of quality and purity as its commercially produced counterparts.
It is estimated that non-commercial alcohol accounts for around 50% of total alcohol consumption
worldwide, most of it not reflected in official consumption figures.31 The lack of data about noncommercial alcohol makes research into the drinking patterns around it difficult. There is currently a
dearth of scientific evidence about non-commercial alcohol, its production, consumption patterns, and
related outcomes.32
High taxation may lead to increased consumption of potentially dangerous kinds of non-commercial
and illicit beverage alcohol with higher safety and health risks.33 The effect of tax and price on
alcohol consumption has largely been studied in the highly developed market economies of Western
Europe and North America. Some research however suggests that price changes may have a greater
effect on sales of commercially available branded alcohol in low and middle income countries where
access to home production and other non-commercial beverage alcohol is higher. Increased alcohol
taxes may result in decreases in commercial beverage alcohol purchases and increased consumption of
non-commercial alcohol. An example from Zimbabwe demonstrates this relationship: following an
increase in taxes on lager beer, a large number of consumers turned to untaxed locally produced
opaque beer. In turn, the government subsequently reduced the tax in order to secure a source of vital
tax revenue.34

27

Rehm, J., et al., 2004

Saffer & Grossman, 1987; Laixuthai, & Chaloupka, 1993.
29
Sloan, et al., 1994; Dee, 1999; Mast, , Benson & Rasmussen , 1999
30
Kenkel, D.S., 1996.
31
Haworth & Simpson, 2004.
32
Larson & Hanson, 1992; Nordlund et al., 1994; Martinic, 1998; Heath, 2000, ICAP, 2005.
33
Greunewald & Treno, 2000.
34
Jernigan, 1997.
28

3. Young people
Much research has examined the effect of socioeconomic variables on the consumption of alcohol,
especially among young people.35 An important argument often put forward in the taxation / price
debate is the assertion that higher taxes (prices) tend to deters young people from initiating drinking
alcohol and discourages consumption in some young populations.36 In a recent study, Guis finds that
alcohol taxes have varying, but minor effects on the alcoholic beverage consumption of young adults
and that other variables, such as age, are often more significant. 37
4. Heavy drinkers
Ideally, as some economists have suggested, it should be the harmful patterns of drinking that are
taxed, which might suggest that abusive drinkers be taxed (through higher health insurance premiums)
and that alcohol-impaired driving penalties be increased dramatically.38 But it is impossible to
restrict alcohol taxes to those who experience some degree of alcohol morbidity. It is important
therefore to balance both equity and utility in determining tax levels. Although there have been numerous studies assessing responsiveness of heavy drinkers to price increases though taxation, they have
not all conclusively pointed to a significant price / demand responsiveness. One study found that
among the heaviest drinkers demand for alcohol is not price responsive but that alcohol addiction is a
stronger contributing factor to drinking patterns. For moderate to heavy drinkers there is an increased
sensitivity to price.39 For the lightest drinkers, however, price sensitivity potentially reduces any
benefits this population might obtain from their beneficial patterns of consumption.
5. Travelers allowances / cross-border trade / unrecorded alcohol
Increased alcohol taxes may also lead to increases in theft, illegal cross-border trade of alcohol, and
the sale of potentially harmful counterfeit products. Such activities can result in a number of unintended consequences:40
Increased cross-border trade of alcohol from neighboring countries where taxes (and effectively
prices) are lower.
Growth in the alcohol black market trading in smuggled and counterfeit beverage alcohol often of
dubious quality.
Movement away from commercial beverages altogether and towards home-production, again
raising the possibility of low quality products.
VI.
EXCISE TAX: CROSS-COUNTRY COMPARISON
There is a wide variation between tax rates between countries and between alcohol beverage types.
Table 1 provides a comparison sales and excise taxes by country and beverage type.

35

Coate & Grossman, 1988; Heien & Pompelli, 1989; Laixuthai & Chaloupka, 1993; Benson, Rasmussen & Mast,
1999; Guis, 2005.
36
WHO, 2001.
37
Guis, 2005.
38
Manning, et al., 1995.
39
Manning, et al., 1995.
40
Nordlund & sterberg, 2000; Leifman, 2001; Hrstedt, 2004; Lyall, 2003. For additional examples from Europe,
see: Brewers of Europe, 2004.

Table 1: Sales taxes on alcohol beverages, excise taxes and use of excise stamps on containers, by
region / country

Source: WHO, 2004.

10

VII. CONCLUSIONS
Like many other commodities, beverage alcohol is subject to taxation. These taxes are levied by national,
state or local (county or city) governments, and often in combination with each other. The main purpose of
taxation is to generate government revenue. However, governments also use taxes on beverage alcohol for
several other purposes: to attempt to reduce abuse and harm by making alcohol less accessible; to create
trade barriers; to encourage the purchase of domestic over imported products.
In establishing alcohol policies, governments must weigh commercial freedoms and consumers rights
of access to a product against protecting their citizens. This includes determining levels of taxation
that do not impose an undue burden on consumers and restrict their choices or penalize producers by
restricting fair trade practices. Like any policy measure that addresses the general population, taxation
is a blunt tool and does not differentiate between problematic and unproblematic drinking patterns.

11

REFERENCES
Adian, M. (2001). Can Alcohol Price Policies be Used to Reduce Drunk Driving? Evidence from
Canada. Journal of Substance Use & Misuse, 36(13), 1923-1957.
Antalova, L. & Martinic, M. (2005). Beverage Alcohol Availability Controls. ICAP Reviews, No. 1.
Washington, DC: International Center for Alcohol Policies.
Babor, T.F., Caetano, R., Caswell, S., Edwards, G., Giesbrecht, N., Graham, K., et al. (2003).
Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity. Research and Public Policy. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.
Benson, B.L., Rasmussen, D.W. & Mast, B.D. (1999). Deterring Drunk Driving Fatalities: An Economics of Crime Perspective. International Review of Law and Economics 19(2), 205-225.
Brewers of Europe (2004). Bringing the Northern High Tax Member States into the Single Market.
Brussels: Author.
Chaloupka, F.J., Grossman, M. & Saffer, H. (2002). The Effects of Price on Alcohol Consumption and
Alcohol-Related Problems. Alcohol Research and Health, 26, 22-34.
Chaloupka, F.J. (2003). The Effects of Price on Alcohol Use, Abuse, and Their Consequences. In R.J.
Bonnie and M. E OConnell (Eds), Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility.
Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, The National Academies Press.
Coate, D. & Grossman, M. (1988). Effects of Alcoholic Beverage Prices and Legal Drinking Ages on
Youth Alcohol Use. Journal of Law and Economics, 31, 145-171.
Dee, Thomas S. (1999). State Alcohol policies, Teen Drinking and Traffic Fatalities. Journal of
Public Economics 72, 289315
Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, 2003. Public Revenues from Alcohol Beverages
2003. Washington, DC: DISCUS Office of Economic and Strategic Analysis.
Ernst & Young (2005). The Contribution Made by Beer to the European Economy. Amsterdam:
Author.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union (2003). Excise Duty
Tables: Tax Receipts Alcoholic Beverages. Ref 1.018, December 2003. Retrieved May 2,2006
from: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/resources/documents/
excise_duties_alcohol_en.pdf.
European Commission (2004). Report on the Rates of Excise Duty Applied on Alcohol and Alcoholic Beverages. COM(2004) 223 Final. Brussels: Author. Retrieved May 2, 2006 from: http://
europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2004/com2004_0223en01.pdf.
Farrell, S., Manning, W.G. & Finch, M. (2003). Alcohol Dependence and the Price of Alcoholic
Beverages. Journal of Health Economics, 22, 117-147.

12

Godfrey, C. (1989). Factors Influencing the Consumption of Alcohol and Tobacco: The Use and
Abuse of Economic Models. British Journal of Addiction, 84, 1123-1138
Grossman, M., Chaloupka, F.J., Saffer, H. & Laixuthai, A. (1994). Effects of Alcohol Price Policy on
Youth: A Summary of Economic Research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 347-364.
Gruenewald, P.J. & Treno A.J. (2000). Local and Global Alcohol Supply: Economic and
Geographic Models of Community Systems. Addiction, 95 (Suppl. 4), S537-S549.
Gruenewald, P.J., Ponicki, W.R., Holder, H.D. (2006). Alcohol Prices, Beverage Quality and the
Demand for Alcohol: Quality Substitutions and Price Elasticities. Clinical and Experimental Research 30, 96-105.
Guis, M.P. (2005). An Estimate on the Effects of Age, Taxes and Other Socioeconomic Variables on
the Alcohol Beverage Demand of Young Adults. The Social Science Journal, 42, 13-24.
Hrstedt, K. (2004). Vr Gar Grnsen? [Where Do We Set the Limit?]. Stockholm, Sweden:
Statens Offentliga Utredningar.
Haworth, A. & Simpson, R. (Eds.) (2004). Moonshine Markets: Issues inUunrecorded Alcohol
BeverageProduction and Consumption. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Heath, D.B. (2000). Drinking Occasions: Comparative Perspectives on Alcohol and Culture.
Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Heien, D. & Pompelli, G. (1989). The Demand for Alcoholic Beverages: Economic and Demographic Effects. Southern Economic Journal, 55, 759-770.
Heyman, G.M. (1996). Elasticity of Demand for Alcohol in Humans and Rats. In L. Green & J.H.
Kagel (Eds.), Advances in Behavioral Economics: Volume 3. Substance Use and Abuse (pp. 107132). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Heyman, G.M. (2000). Economic Approach to Animal Models of Alcoholism. Alcohol Research and
Health, 24, 132-140.
Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Ahlstrm, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., & Morgan, M.
(2000). The 1999 ESPAD Report: Alcohol and Other Drug Use Among Students in 30 European
Countries. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs
(CAN).
Holder, H., et al. (1998). European Integration and Nordic Alcohol Policies. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate Publishing.
Hurst, W., Gregory, E. & Gussman, T. (1997). International Survey: AlcoholicBeverage Taxation
and Control Policies. Ottawa, Canada: Brewers Association of Canada.

13

International Center for Alcohol Policies (2004). Drinking Patterns: From Theory to Practice. ICAP
Reports 15. Washington, DC: Author.
International Center for Alcohol Policies (2005). Blue Book: Practical Guides for Alcohol Policy
and Targeted Interventions. Washington, DC: Author.
Jernigan, D. (1997). Thirsting for Markets: The Global Impact of Corporate Alcohol. San Rafael,
CA: The Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems.
Kenkel, D.S. (1996). New Estimates of the Optimal Tax on Alcohol. Economic Inquiry, 34, 296-319.
Kenkel, D. & Manning, W.G. (1996). Perspectives on Alcohol Taxation. Alcohol Health and Research World, 20, 230-238.
Kuo, M., Heeb, J., Gmel, G. & Rehm, J. (2003). Does Price Matter? The Effect of Decreased Price on
Spirits Consumption in Switzerland. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27, 720-725.
Laixuthai, A. & Chaloupka, F.J. (1993). Youth Alcohol Use and Public Policy. Contemporary Economic Policy, 11(4), 70-81. Oxford University Press.
Larson, S. & Hanson, B.S. (1992). Consumption of Illicit Distilled Alcohol Among Teenagers in
Sweden. Paper presented at 18th Annual Alcohol Epidemiology Symposium, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Lehto, J. (1997). Economics of Alcohol. Addiction, 92 (Suppl.1), S55-S59.
Leifman, H. (2001). Homogenization in Alcohol Consumption in the European Union. Nordissk
Alkohol- and Narkotikatidskrift, 18, 15-30.
Lyall, S. (2003). Something Cheap in the State of Denmark: Liquor. The New York Times, October 13,
2003, A4.
Manning, W.G., Blumberg, L. & Moulton, L. (1995). The Demand for Alcohol: The Differential
Response to Price. Journal of Health Economics, 14, 123-148.
Martinic, M. (1998). Implications for Measurement and Research. In M.Grant & J. Litvak (Eds.),
Drinking Patterns and Their Consequences (pp. 221-241). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
National Research Council (1997). Premature Death in the New Independent States. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Nordlund, S., Holme, I. & Tamsfoss, S. (1994). Radomised Response Estimates for the Purchase of
Smuggled Liquor in Norway. Addiction, 89, 401-405.
Nordlund, S. & sterberg, E. (2000). Unrecorded Alcohol Consumption: Economics and its Effects
on Alcohol Control in the Nordic Countries. Addiction, 95 (Suppl. 4), S551-S564.
Norstrm, T. (2001). Alcohol and Mortality: The Post-War Experience in the EU Countries. Addiction, 96 (Suppl. 1), S1-S129.
14

Norstrm, T. (Ed.) (2002). Alcohol in Postwar Europe: Consumption,Drinking Patterns,

Consequences and Policy Responses in 15 European Countries. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from
http://www.fhi.se/templates/Page2cols____616.aspx.
sterberg, E. (1995). Do Alcohol Prices Affect Consumption and Related Problems? In Holder, H.D.
& Edwards, G. (Eds.), Alcohol and Public Policy: Evidence and Issues (pp. 145163). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
sterberg, E. & Karlsson, T. (Eds.) (2003). Alcohol Policies in EU Member States and Norway. A
Collection of CountryReports. Helsinki, Finland: National Research and Development Centre for
Welfare and Health (STAKES). Retrieved February 1, 2006, from
http://www.stakes.fi/verkkojulk/pdf/AlcoholPoliciesInEUetc.pdf
Popham, R.E., Schmidt, W. & DeLint, J. (1975). The Prevention of Alcoholism: Epidemiological
Studies of the Effects of Government Control Measures. British Journal of Addiction, 715, 125-144.
Rehm, J., Room, R., Monteiro, M., Gmel, G., Graham, K., Rehn, N., et al. (2004). Alcohol Use. In:
Ezzati, M., Lopez, A.D., Rogers, A, Murray, C.J.L., (Eds.), Comparative Quantification of Health
Risks, Vol. 1. (pp. 959-1108). Geneva: World Health Organization.
Saffer, H. & Grossman, M. (1987). Beer Taxes, the Legal Drinking Age, and Youth Motor Vehicle
Fatalities. Journal of Legal Studies. 16, 351-374.
World Health Organization (2001). Global Status Report on Alcohol, Geneva: Author
World Health Organization. (2004). Global Status Report: Alcohol Policy. Geneva: Author.
Retrieved February 1, 2006, from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/alcohol/en/

15

The International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP) is dedicated to promoting understanding of the
role of alcohol in society and to helping reduce the abuse of alcohol worldwide through dialogue and
partnerships involving the beverage alcohol industry, the public health community and others interested in alcohol policy. ICAP is a not-for-profit organization supported by ten major international
beverage alcohol companies.
Other ICAP Reports include:

Issue 1: Safe Alcohol Consumption: A Comparison of Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Sensible Drinking

Issue 2: The Limits of Binge Drinking

Issue 3: Health Warning Labels

Issue 4: Drinking Age Limits

Issue 5: What Is a Standard Drink?

Issue 6: Government Policies on Alcohol and Pregnancy

Issue 7: Estimating Costs Associated with Alcohol Abuse: Towards a Patterns Approach

Issue 8: Who are the Abstainers?

Issue 9: Self-Regulation of Beverage Alcohol Advertising

Issue 10: Alcohol and Special Populations: Biological Vulnerability

Issue 11: Blood Alcohol Concentration Limits Worldwide

Issue 12: Violence and Licensed Premises

Issue 13: Alcohol and the Workplace

Issue 14: International Drinking Guidelines

Issue 15: Drinking Patterns: From Theory to Practice

Issue 16: Alcohol Education and Its Effectiveness

Issue 17: The Structure of the Beverage Alcohol Industry

Please direct all request to reproduce or publish this report in part or in its entirety to:
International Center for Alcohol Policies
1519 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036, USA
Phone: 202-986-1159
Fax: 202-986-2080
Web site: http://www.icap.org