Blockchain Papers

Jan Andersen

Municipalities have an important role in enacting alcohol policy in Norway. The task of the local authorities is to implement the national goals and form a locally adapted practice, mainly by controlling the availability of alcohol to the public. The local politicians experience this as an issue where they are exposed to a cross-pressure between sociopolitical concerns on the one hand and business interests on the other hand. This paper focuses on alcohol policies in municipalities which give priority to business development, especially tourism. It is based on case studies of two Norwegian municipalities. The paper first looks at the actual changes in the alcohol policy in the two municipalities, and secondly, at the decision-making process leading up to these changes. Four approaches for studying decision-making processes, inspired by a model by Jo-han P. Olsen, are used: rationality, legitimacy, power and necessity. The study found a liberalization with regard to the availability of alcoholic beverages in the two municipalities. This can be explained by changes in external conditions, changes in influential positions between different actors, and changes in public attitudes towards alcohol and interpretations of the local authorities’ ability to control the consumption of alcohol in the population. At the same time the local authorities have strengthened efforts to control licensees. This can be seen as a result of demands from the national authorities, and of the fact that this activity can be financed by a tax on the licensees. The combination of the liberalization of the license policy and the strengthening of the control of the licensees can also be seen as a compromise between different political attitudes, but where the business interests are more important than the sociopolitical concerns. The local politicians also underlined the importance of information activity aiming at influencing attitudes towards alcohol. This last mean is characterized by a legitimating function and almost restricted to rhetorics. It seems that this is more a symbolic politics. Generally the study emphasizes mechanisms indicating that the consequence of a decentralization of power to local authorities will be a more uniform liberal politics rather than more locally based differences.

John E. Owens

Following the Republican victory in the 1994 mid-term elections, the balance of power in the US House of Representatives between committees and central party leader shifted decisively in favour of the latter. The central thrust of the procedural and personnel changes instituted under Newt Gingrich in 1994 and 1995 was to consolidate party government. This article reviews these important changes and analyses their impact on the legislative process. The return to party government is explained as a product of Gingrich's partisan vision of legislative organization, the destabilization of existing institutional relations as a consequence of the shift in partisan control, the unusual conditions of the 1994 elections, and the strong team spirit and high levels of Republican party support. The article speculates that a return to more autonomous, less party-dominated committee system is unlikely given strong Democratic support for robust centralized party leadership, important changes in Congress's policy agenda, high membership turnover, and the probable continuation of split-party government, but the potency of these centralizing forces will probably be mitigated by familiar decentralizing pressures in contemporary American politics.