Content area
Full text
Historical explanations for the American "noble experiment" with alcohol prohibition based on individual conspiracies, cultural changes, social movements, or self-interested bureaucracies are partial and unsatisfying. Recent advances in punctuated equilibrium theory shine new light on this historical enigma, providing a more persuasive account of the dramatic episodes associated with both constitutional prohibition and its repeal. Through longitudinal analysis of a unique data set reflective of early twentieth century public alcohol control sentiments, this article suggests that, as but one of a range of potential alcohol policy options, national alcohol prohibition was hardly a foregone conclusion. The ultimate adoption of prohibition over competing alcohol control alternatives, as well as its eventual repeal, can best be understood with reference to particular feedback processes inherent in the institutional structure of American policymaking, which readily account for both the mad dash for prohibition and the widespread clamor for repeal, which have traditionally eluded historical explanation.
KEY WORDS: punctuated equilibrium theory, alcohol control, prohibition
The American experience with alcohol prohibition in the early twentieth century has always been considered something of an enigma, embodying a series of apparent historical anomalies: a successful antiprogressive initiative in the middle of the Progressive Era, the only constitutional amendment to circumscribe individual liberty (the Eighteenth), and the only amendment to nullify another (the Twenty-First). For social movement studies, there is the dilemma of explaining the ultimate victory of temperance forces at a time when both alcohol consumption and enrollment in temperance organizations were on the decline from heights in the nineteenth century (Rorabaugh, 1979). Moreover, the conventional wisdom that faults the particular American socioeconomic and cultural divisions for this ultimately disastrous policy experiment fail to acknowledge that the United States' experience was only part of a worldwide temperance wave that ultimately saw prohibition adopted in 10 countries, with others simultaneously adopting somewhat less draconian alcohol restrictions. Finally, the hypotheses of historians developed to explain the advent of prohibition have a notorious inability to explain its demise some 13 years later. In short, it is time for a new perspective on the "noble experiment" (Fisher, 1930)-one that can not only encompass development at the national, subnational, and international levels of analysis, but also adequately account for both the rise and fall of national prohibition.