But Would The People Of Bihar Prefer Alcohol To The Land Of Cheese And Honey?

5
1105

The Indian state of Bihar banned all alcohol a couple of years back. They’ve also hired a couple of, erm, think tanks, to study the impacts. Which are said to be that the money people didn’t spend on alcohol has been spent upon better saris and milk products and honey. Some will say that this shows the success of the policy. But which would the people of Bihar prefer? A reasonable clue being what did they spend money upon when they had the choice?

Prohibition is making people of Bihar spend on good clothes and food with sale of expensive sarees rising by 1,751 percent while consumption of honey by 380% and that of cheese by 200% in the first six months of the ban, according to latest studies on the measure.

No doubt better food and clothes makes some people happier. But this art of governing thing is to please the maximum number of people, no?

The studies, conducted by reputed think tank Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI) and government-funded knowledge institute Development Management Institute (DMI), also pointed out that 19 per cent of households acquired new assets from the money they earlier splurged on alcohol.

Splurge is something of a loaded word. It makes the assumption that what other people desire is a waste. And you’re really got to have some good proof to assert that about other peoples’ consumption choices.

Both studies were mandated by the Bihar government to find out the consequences of the liquor ban. According to PTI, the studies are intended “as a response to demands of rural women who suffered because of the widespread practice of drinking alcohol.”

It’s not obvious that their wishes should be paramount, is it?

There’s one idea we can put forward here. Rather more than a little odd, true, but it’s possible. That illegal booze and only illegal booze made it cheaper in Bihar. Homemade hooch isn’t exactly unknown in India, it’s also possible to gain it from other states. And if there’s no tax to be paid at all upon it (excise duties are state by state, meaning that booze from outside Bihar will be untaxed) it could be that booze is now cheaper. Agreed, unlikely but it is still possible. Meaning that the rise in spending upon other things is not a result of booze not being taken, but of the lack of a government slice being taken upon booze.

There’s also one rather more obvious point. Those who were drinking before the ban were doing so voluntarily. If they had wished to spend the money on saris and cheese then they would have done so. They didn’t, they spent it on booze instead. Thus they preferred to booze, didn’t they? From expressed preferences we can thus see that this is a reduction in utility to the people of Bihar. Which isn’t really what governments are supposed to be doing, is it?

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
SpikeRhoda KlappPat Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Pat
Guest
Pat

I wonder if they make mead in Bihar. Might account for the honey.

Spike
Guest
Spike

Well-played! Now, there are good and bad years for bee-keeping. I assume 2018 featured good bargains in the honey market totally unrelated to Prohibition, rather than that being unable to buy alcohol (if this is even true) created a sudden desire to consume honey. Did the “researchers” reporting on the “consequences” (that means causation) of the liquor ban explain why this might be the case?

Spike
Guest
Spike

No one enters the legislature to “study” or measure anything but to boss other people around. In doing so, the legislature did not call for “studies” of the effects of Prohibition, but for sales pitches to be devised. It seems these did not even measure whether, given the decree not to buy alcohol, the citizens indeed did cease to buy alcohol. It noticed two upticks, of products arguably more healthy than alcohol, and assumed those were the same rupees diverted to wiser uses. That’s absurdly superficial. As desired.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

If the intent was to sell saris and cheese, all well and good. If the intent had some element of maybe health or reduction of violence or domestic problems, wouldn’t it be more informative to measure those things? Or did they find no evidence of the desired outcome and published the only results they did find.

Spike
Guest
Spike

PS — Tim’s sidebar that Prohibition might have actually reduced the cost of alcohol in Bihar (by the amount of the former state tax) is interesting but is not supported by any of the other Prohibitions we know of. New costs would include: transporting the alcohol to Bihar; the risk of buying adulterated or contaminated product; transacting out of the view of law enforcement, including bringing your own armed enforcement if necessary; the risk of one transactor deciding to leave with the booze and the cash; and the eventual need to find the couple of people in each police department… Read more »