Washington used to have a state monopoly for liquor sales (why this would have been the case in the first place is an interesting topic for public choice study, but I won't get into that here). As has been the case in many states, there was a movement to upend the public monopoly and allow for private sales. What many people don't realize, however, is that these efforts have been largely spearheaded by big-box retailers, namely Costco and Target. Their lobbying efforts meant that when the voter referendum to disband the state monopoly was finally on the ballot, it created a new regulation: the state would no longer be involved in liquor sales, but from that point forward only stores greater than 10,000 square feet in size would be allowed to sell liquor.
When I learned about it, this blew my mind: this regulation seems so obviously detrimental to public welfare and so clearly designed only to serve the interests of the lobbyists that it was honestly surprising to me. It hides behind the veil of
public concerns that gas stations and mini-marts would be allowed to sell liquor,but more realistically seems directed at preventing competition from smaller entrants. Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprising - Stigler's analysis of how firms acquire regulation to keep out new competition and support themselves appears to fit this situation perfectly.
(Note: Also of interest, though not necessarily as closely related to public choice, is the auction process that went on in this case. The existing state stores were auctioned off to public buyers, and they were granted special exemptions to the 10,000 square foot rule and allowed to continue operation.)
No comments:
Post a Comment