4. 4 Comparison

This chapter closes with a comparison of the two states and their practices of formal control of alcohol. A difference can be established with respect to the role of the central state in practices of formal social control. Sweden has a tradition of strong central state power taking care of a homogeneous population. The tradition of strong central governance entailed that when the Social Democratic Party came to power as the major political force they inherited a centralised state structure that facilitated the planning of society and realising the "People's Home" project, with a strong public sector, accessible to all citizens. Consequently, the core sectors of social policy are public services in Sweden, provided by the central and local governments. The notion that health and social care was a state obligation has never been questioned in Sweden (Elmér, Blomberg, Harrysson, Petersson 1998: 269). The role of NGOs in these fields is marginal compared to other industrialised countries (Lundström and Wijkström 1997).
The Netherlands, on the contrary, has had a long tradition of decentralised government with a heterogeneous population that appealed to their own circles rather than to the state. The long tradition of a weak central state was continued with the strong political position of liberals and later in the structure of pillars. In the Netherlands, welfare provisions are based on the principle of subsidiarity, meaning a limited operative role of the central state. In the Netherlands these
services are both tax-financed or privately financed but largely affiliated to and executed by NGOs, which is a heritage from the pillarised structure of society.
At the end of the eighteenth century, the states became involved in the control of alcohol for two reasons. A profound state involvement in alcohol issues was that the revenue from alcohol production, and later consumption, poured into the treasury. At the end of the nineteenth century in both countries, alcohol taxes were one of the main sources of income for the state. Besides, the state had to protect the alcohol industry that provided many jobs. To the state, it was not so much a struggle against alcohol as a struggle over alcohol (Blomqvist 1998: 3; Gerritsen 1993: 226). The position of the state became ambivalent when alcohol abuse was perceived a source of many social problems. A balance had to be maintained between these interests and measures against the alcohol problem. In Sweden, the state eventually achieved a monopoly on production, import, and sale of alcohol and succeeded in regulating the use of alcohol without losing its revenues. The position of the Dutch state can be described as restrictive. In the liberal ideology, private property is a sacrosanct matter, which prevented the state from taking drastic measures.
The second field of alcohol matters in which the states became involved concerned practices to control consumption of alcohol. A difference concerns legislation to regulate alcohol consumption. The state did not refrain from interference in the private life of the citizens but interventions were related to and justified by maintaining public order. Control of poor or unemployed people's alcohol habits was delegated to local poor relief. Alcohol abuse was an individual problem and not a matter for state interference. The state should not act as a censor morum. The Swedish state, in contrast, controlled consumption of alcohol by national legislation and an extensive bureaucracy was
established to secure compliance with the law. The ration book system was a general control system of individuals.
The temperance question was an important issue in both societies, especially during the first decades of the twentieth century. In the case of Sweden, prohibition is described as an issue of an almost religious character (Hadenius, Wieslander, and Molin 1967: 103). Bruun and Frånberg (1985: 341) pointed out a salient feature of the Swedish alcohol question in the 1920s. A strong conviction prevailed among the majority of the people and those in authority that the "drug" alcohol carried endogenous risks and could not be accepted in society. In the Netherlands, the struggle against alcoholism even caused an exception to the rule of segregation between pillars. In both countries, temperance
movements had their heydays in a period of lowest recorded levels of alcohol consumption. The consumption rate of liquor in the Netherlands showed a sharper decrease that in most other Western countries (Gerritsen 1993: 166). Around 1930, the consumption of liquor was below one litre per head, which was even less than in Sweden.26 After the enactment of general suffrage the temperance movements decreased in members but would remain an important actor in the alcohol arena. In the Netherlands, they moved their focus to salvation of the alcoholic while in Sweden political action for prohibition remained in focus as well. A salient difference is that temperance movements in Sweden
advocated total prohibition. In the Netherlands, the movements followed the lines of the pillars and remained divided on the question of moderate drinking or absolutism.
The different traditions of state involvement in formal control of alcohol can clearly be traced also in the care of alcoholics. The initiatives to save drunkards came from temperance movements. Curiously, asylums for alcoholics were established by temperance movements in the same year, 1891. However, further developments reveal very different arrangements for care of alcoholics in the two countries. One salient difference is the emphasis on ambulatory care in
the Netherlands and on intramural care in Sweden. This can partly be explained by the different flows of state subsidies to improve the troubled financial position of institutions that tried to save drunkards. In Sweden, asylums received a state subsidy or were operated by the state itself. Ambulatory care was delegated to municipal temperance councils just like poor relief, and care of children was a municipal matter.
The central state in the Netherlands was not directly involved in alcohol care. The only way to receive a state subsidy was by becoming acknowledged as a probation agency. Intramural care was not extended until alcoholism became acknowledged and covered by insurance as a disease. The close operation between justice and ambulatory care is characteristic of the Dutch situation. However, the emphasis on ambulatory care in the Netherlands is also due to intrinsic views within care. Ambulatory rehabilitation was judged more efficient than intramural care. Another salient difference concerns compulsory care. In Sweden, persons could (and still can) be sentenced to deprivation of liberty according to the Temperance Act by an administrative court, which reflects the traditional right of the state to interfere in the private lives of its citizens. In the Netherlands, deprivation of liberty was (and still is) a matter for the criminal court. To leave this to an administrative body was (and is) unthinkable due to the principle of the legal rights of the individual. Alcohol abuse that does not harm others is a private matter and the state is not allowed to act.
A crucial note is that in the core fields of welfare provision, the Dutch state is supplementary, while in Sweden NGOs are supplementary to the state. This means that the Dutch state for the implementation of a policy has to negotiate with strongly organised NGOs according to the principle of subsidiarity. The Swedish state, on the other hand, directly steers the public sector executed by state or delegated to local authorities.
The main features of the practices of formal control of alcohol can be summarised as follows. In Sweden, the availability of alcohol was seen as the cause of the problem that needed to be controlled. The practice that developed was one of state control on the production, distribution and sale of alcohol. Sobriety and insobriety became a task for local temperance boards that monitored the alcohol habits of the people. Control practices were not confined to drunkards but were also aimed at preventing alcohol abuse. In the Netherlands, formal control of the availability of alcohol in society was not seen as a task for the central state and was delegated to local authorities. Control of production, distribution, and sale was impossible to establish because of the primacy of private property. Instead, control of people's alcohol habits was left to local judicial authorities and poor relief that focused on drunkards, not the general population.

26 This low consumption rate would remain until the 1960s. After that, the consumption rate of alcohol would rapidly reach the level of its neighbouring countries.