In democratic political systems one would expect public opinion to be a primary determinant of social policy, yet there are numerous examples of discordance between prevailing opinions and government activity. We sought to assess the extent of agreement between public opinion and local government alcohol policies in New Zealand communities during a period of substantial public and political focus on alcohol-related harm. In 2007, we measured public support for various alcohol policies using a cross-sectional postal survey. Local government documents were examined and council staff interviewed to determine the presence or absence of a range of alcohol-related harm countermeasures. Public support was compared with policy status (present vs. absent) in each community. Agreement varied from moderate in a metropolitan city to total in the two rural areas. Despite the majority of residents supporting policies that research suggests would reduce alcohol-related harm, in most communities, and particularly the largest metropolitan area, local government policy did not always reflect public opinion.
BirklandT. A. (2005). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (2nd ed.). New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
2.
BursteinP. (1998). Bringing the public back in: Should sociologists consider the impact of public opinion on public policy. Social Forces, 77(1), 27–62.
3.
CasswellS.GilmoreL.MaguireV., & RansomR. (1989). Changes in public support for alcohol policies following a community-based campaign. British Journal of Addiction, 84(5), 515–522.
4.
CasswellS., & MaxwellA. (2005). What works to reduce alcohol-related harm and why aren't the policies more popular?Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 25, 118–141.
5.
DosserS., & AndersonK. (2008, April). Options for control of liquor outlets by TLAs. Paper presented at the Alcohol Advisory Council Partnerships Conference, Nelson, New Zealand.
6.
GreenfieldT. K.JohnsonS. P., & GiesbrechtN. (2004). Public opinion on alcohol policy: A review of U.S. research. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31(4), 759–790.
7.
HansenS. B. (1975). Participation, political structure, and concurrence. The American Political Science Review, 69(4), 1181–1199.
8.
HarwoodE. M.BernatD. H.LenkK. M.VazquezM. J., & WagenaarA. C. (2004). Public opinion in Puerto Rico on alcohol control policies. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26(4), 426–445.
9.
HillL. (2004). Planning for the sale of alcohol: A review of research and policy. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health.
10.
HillL. (2005). Planning for alcohol in the community. Wellington, New Zealand: Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand.
11.
HillK. Q., & Hinton-AnderssonA. (1995). Pathways of representation: A causal analysis of public opinion-policy linkages. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 924.
12.
HillK. Q., & MatsubayashiT. (2005). Civic engagement and mass-elite policy agenda agreement in American communities. The American Political Science Review, 99(2), 215–224.
13.
HoboltS. B., & KlemmemsenR. (2005). Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark. Political Studies, 53(2), 379–402.
14.
HowlettM., & RameshM. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (2nd ed.). Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
15.
KelleherC. A. (2005, April). Representation in American local governments: The intersection of ideology and institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
16.
KingdonJ. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. Ltd.
17.
KypriK.PaschallM. J.LangleyJ.BaxterJ.Cashell-SmithM., & BourdeauB. (2009). Drinking and alcohol-related harm among New Zealand university students: Findings from a national Web-based survey. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 33(2), 307–314.
18.
MacLennanB. (2010). Local government alcohol policy: Community sentiment and the policy development process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Otago, Dunedin.
19.
MacLennanB.KypriK., & LangleyJ. (2011). Distributing surveys: Postal versus drop-and-collect. Epidemiology, 22(3), 1–2.
20.
MillerW. E., & StokesD. E. (1963). Constituency influence in Congress. The American Political Science Review, 57(1), 45–56.
21.
MonroeA. D. (1979). Consistency between public preferences and national policy decisions. American Politics Research, 7(1), 3–19.
22.
MonroeA. D. (1998). Public opinion and public policy, 1980–1993. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(1), 6–28.
23.
PageB. I., & ShapiroR. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. The American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175–190.
24.
PetryF., & MendelsohnM. (2004). Public opinion and policy making in Canada 1994–2001. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 37(3), 505–529.
25.
PinskyI.SanchesM.ZaleskiM.LaranjeiraR., & CaetanoR. (2007). Opinions about alcohol control policies among Brazilians: The first national alcohol survey. Contemporary Drug Problems, 34(4), 635–648.
26.
SabatierP. A. (1999). Theoretical lenses on public policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
27.
VerbaS., & NieN. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper & Row.
28.
WeberR. E., & ShafferW. R. (1972). Public opinion and American state policy-making. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16(4), 683–699.
29.
WilkinsonC.RoomR., & LivingstonM. (2009). Mapping Australian public opinion on alcohol policies in the new millennium. Drug and Alcohol Review, 28(3), 263–274.
