Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:23:38.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voting on Prohibition: Disentangling Preferences on Alcohol and Decentralization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2018

John Dinan  and
Jac C. Heckelman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We contribute to an understanding of the determinants of voter support for US prohibition policies in the early 1900s, by separating substantive preferences for wet versus dry policies from preferences for centralized versus decentralized control. Prior studies of prohibition referenda have generated various conclusions about which groups supported and opposed prohibition, whether regarding the role of religion, urban/rural residence, immigrant status, gender, or class. But none of these studies has considered the impact of preferences regarding decentralization on voter support for prohibition measures. We exploit a combination of referenda unique to the 1933 Ohio ballot, where voters considered prohibition-repeal measures alongside a county home-rule amendment. By viewing support for home rule as a proxy for decentralization preferences we clarify and explain anomalies in prior studies regarding determinants of support for prohibition and its repeal, especially regarding urban counties and some evangelical denominations, which are shown to have been guided by a preference for local control of alcohol policy, and counties with larger proportions of women, which are associated with greater support for more centralized and uniform alcohol policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , Spring 2019 , pp. 113 - 130
Copyright
© Social Science History Association, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dinan, John Heckelman, Jac C. (2005) “The anti-tobacco movement in the Progressive Era: A case study of direct democracy in Oregon.” Explorations in Economic History 42 (4): 529–546.Google Scholar
Dinan, John Heckelman, Jac C. (2014) “Support for repealing Prohibition: An analysis of state-wide referenda on ratifying the 21st Amendment.” Social Science Quarterly 95 (3): 636–651.Google Scholar
Dostie, Benoit Dupre, Ruth (2012) “‘The people’s will’: Canadians and the 1898 referendum on alcohol prohibition.” Explorations in Economic History 49 (4): 498–515.Google Scholar
Dostie, Benoit Dupre, Ruth (2016) “Serial referendums on alcohol prohibition: A New Zealand invention.” Social Science History 40 (3): 491–521.Google Scholar
Endersby, James W. (2012) “Prohibition and repeal: Voting on statewide liquor referenda in Texas.” Social Science Journal 49 (4): 503–512.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Nicholas (2017) “An experimental test of how Americans think about federalism.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 47 (4): 572–598.Google Scholar
Kam, Cindy Mikos, Robert (2007) “Do citizens care about federalism? An experimental test.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 4 (3): 589–624.Google Scholar
Lewis, Michael (2008) “Access to saloons, wet voter turnout, and statewide prohibition referenda, 1907–1919.” Social Science History 32 (3): 373–404.Google Scholar
McDonagh, Eileen L. Price, H. Douglas (1985) “Woman suffrage in the Progressive Era: Patterns of opposition and support in referenda voting, 1910–1918.” American Political Science Review 79 (2): 415–435.Google Scholar
McGirr, Lisa (2016) The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Munger, Michael Schaller, Thomas (1997) “The prohibition-repeal amendments: A natural experiment in interest group influence.” Public Choice 90 (1–4): 139–163.Google Scholar
Okrent, Daniel (2010) Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Parr, Julie (2014) “Mixed opinions on Arkansas statewide alcohol sales.” KTBS.com, https://www.ktbs.com/news/mixed-opinions-on-arkansas-statewide-alcohol-sales/article_bc62110a-ac0b-5416-a54e-ba99e49ebda1.html (accessed November 18, 2018).Google Scholar
Richman, Sheldon (2014) “Prohibition battle in Arkansas: Local control or individual rights?” Reason.com, http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/02/prohibition-battle-in-arkansas-local-con (accessed July 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Ryan, Thomas G. (1983) “Supporters and opponents of prohibition: Iowa in 1917.” Annals of Iowa 46 (7): 510–522.Google Scholar
Schneider, Saundra Jacoby, William (2013) “‘Intuitive federalism’ and public opinion toward government.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Schneider, Saundra Jacoby, William, and Lewis, Daniel (2011) “Public opinion toward intergovernmental policy responsibilities.” Publius 41 (1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Ira M. (1989) “Prohibition and ethnocultural conflict: The Missouri prohibition referendum of 1918.” Social Science Quarterly 70 (4): 886–901.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Ira M. (1990) “State politics and economic class interests: The 1918 prohibition referendum in California.” Sociological Quarterly 31 (3): 475–484.Google Scholar
Wolak, Jennifer (2016) “Core values and partisan thinking about devolution.” Publius 46 (4): 463–485.Google Scholar