Alcohol consumption in Ireland.

Successive Irish governments have attempted to curb alcohol consumption by artificially inflating the price with alcohol duty. The logic behind this approach is that people tend to buy less of any commodity if the price increases. The recent recommendation, by the HSE to increase alcohol duty is perfectly in line with this logic and they point to the drops in per capita alcohol consumption, in 2002 and 2003, as proof that this works, because those years also saw a rise in alcohol duty on Cider and Spirits respectively.

On the face of it, this would seem like a reasonable conclusion to draw, but if we look at the figures in a little more detail, it soon becomes apparent that the situation is more complex than that.

I now refer to data from the HSE document “Alcohol Consumption in Ireland 1986 – 2006”. The table on page 7 “Appendix 2: Alcohol Consumption per capita, in litres of pure alcohol”, shows a drop in Alcohol consumption of 0.1% in 2002 and 5.93% in 2003, which are the years the HSE uses as justification for their recommendation of a duty increase. However, 1987 also showed a decrease of 2.78% in alcohol consumption, with no corresponding duty increase, while the duty increase in 1989 actually coincided with an increase in alcohol consumption of 4.28%.

Similar anomalous years are 1994, which saw a 1.99% increase in per capita consumption of alcohol, despite a duty increase that year and 2005, which saw a drop in consumption of 0.39%, without the benefit of a duty increase.

Given that the data shows that alcohol consumption is as likely to rise as it is to fall in response to a duty increase, how can one reasonably conclude that duty increases are an effective method of curbing alcohol consumption?

I would also like to challenge the idea that a drop in alcohol sales actually means a positive change in drinking habits. Statistics deal with averages, and a drop in average per capita consumption of alcohol does not mean that problem drinkers in Ireland are drinking less.

Even assuming that a price rise does cause people to buy less alcohol, I see it as far more likely that moderate drinkers are responsible for the drop. A price increase might make moderate drinkers get one less bottle of wine, or not go for that quiet pint or two during the week, resulting in a per capita drop in consumption. Meanwhile, problem drinkers either pay the extra duty and continue their drinking pattern unaltered, or avail of cheaper alternatives, by changing brand, type of alcoholic beverage, or simply moving from the pub to their home, or a park bench, depending on their individual situation. In this case the statistics show a drop but our society has not benefited from it at all.

Meanwhile moderate drinkers become focused on the price of the alcohol they consume and, in an attempt to increase the perceived “value” of the alcohol they purchase, tend to clump their consumption in one or two weekly binges. This behaviour can be seen not only in Ireland, but in Sweden, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and other countries with a history of using price inflation as a method of curbing alcohol consumption.

Also note that the statistics in question are based on the legal sale of duty bearing alcohol and do not take account of black market alcohol, or grey market imports, which naturally increase with a greater disparity between the price of alcohol in neighbouring states.

The net effect of all this is that the artificial inflation of alcohol prices is not only ineffective as a method of controlling alcohol consumption, but causes people to indulge in binges, rather than drinking in a healthy, sustainable manner.

Generations of this approach has resulted in an unhealthy attitude to alcohol in the Irish population, most visible in the binge drinking culture we have today where, despite having some of the highest alcohol prices in Europe, we also have some of the highest per capita consumption rates.