Abstract
In Finland, the role of the state in reorganising alcohol policy has become that of an information guide, and the responsibility for practical arrangements has been increasingly delegated to municipalities. With the dismantling of the state-run centralised alcohol policy system, the focus has been shifted to the prevention of substance abuse at the local level. The reorganisations have intensified the pressure to find adequate methods for preventing substance abuse at the local level.
In this article, we will discuss the pressures created by the dismantling of the state-run alcohol policy and the decentralisation of responsibility in the context of three cities. Our data consists of interviews with authorities from Helsinki, Tampere, and Lappeenranta who have actively participated in local co-operation projects in the substance abuse field.
The data was analysed from two different perspectives. First, we studied the data from the information perspective by examining how familiar our interviewees were with the recent history of alcohol policy and the changes in the alcohol policy system. We were also interested in their views on the reorganisations in the prevention of substance abuse and the reallocation of resources. Then, we analysed our data with the tools provided by the positioning theory and semiotic sociology.
A common feature for all three cities was that the prevention of substance abuse was perceived as the correct method for preventing and treating substance abuse problems. The role of the third sector in the prevention of substance abuse grew in the 1990s, which was also deemed important.
Differences emerged between cities, for example, in the identification of substance abuse problems. In Helsinki and Tampere, mixed substance abuse was categorised as the most serious substance abuse problem, whereas in Lappeenranta alcohol abuse was regarded as such.
Differences were also apparent in the ways in which authorities positioned themselves in the welfare tradition of restrictive alcohol policy. Interviewees from Helsinki and Tampere saw the reorganisations in alcohol policy as a change of direction within the old tradition. The prevailing opinion in Lappeenranta was that the prevention of substance abuse has created space for the revival of collective responsibility in the spirit of old village communities.
Helsinki was clearly lagging behind in the development of networks within the substance abuse field. Authorities from Helsinki admitted that the co-operation network between authorities was still in its infancy, whereas authorities from Tampere and Lappeenranta maintained that a sustainable co-operation scheme had been in progress for a long time.