Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 174, Issue 1–2, pp 81–106 | Cite as

The politics of beer: analysis of the congressional votes on the beer bill of 1933

  • Eline Poelmans
  • John A. Dove
  • Jason E. Taylor
Article

Abstract

Nine days after he took office in March 1933, Franklin Roosevelt asked Congress to amend existing federal Prohibition policy so as to allow for the sale and consumption of 3.2% alcohol beer. Over the following 8 days, the so-called “beer bill” was proposed, debated, passed and signed into law. This study analyzes the political decision making behind one of FDR’s earliest New Deal policies. Specifically, we consider how voter preferences, representatives’ ideologies, national party affiliations, and the influence of special interests affected legislative decision making. We find that special interests and party affiliations were particularly important drivers of congressional voting behavior.

Keywords

Beer legalization Prohibition Special interests Median voter Representative ideology New Deal Franklin Roosevelt 

Supplementary material

11127_2017_493_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 18 kb)

References

  1. Anderson, G. M., & Tollison, R. D. (1991). Congressional influence and patterns of New Deal spending, 1933–1939. Journal of Law and Economics, 34(1), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, R. E. (1985). The political economy of U.S. import policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, R. E., & Magee, C. S. (1985). Is trade policy for sale? Congressional voting on recent trade bills. In NBER Working Paper 6376.Google Scholar
  4. Bender, B., & Lott, J. R., Jr. (1996). Legislator voting and shirking: A critical review of the literature. Public Choice, 87(1–2), 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burden, B. C., Caldeira, G. A., & Groseclose, T. (2000). Measuring the ideologies of U.S. Senators: The song remains the same. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(2), 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherrington, E. H. (1915). Prohibition text book: Facts and figures dealing with the liquor traffic. Westervillle, OH: The American Issue Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Choi, Y. (2015). Constituency, ideology, and economic interest in U.S. congressional voting: The case of the U.S.—Korea free trade agreement. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couch, J. F., & Shughart, W. F., II. (1998). The political economy of the new deal. Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. Coughlin, C. C. (1985). Domestic content legislation: House voting and the economic theory of regulation. Economic Inquiry, 23(3), 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. California series on social choice and political economy, 23. Berkley: University of California.Google Scholar
  11. Fiorina, M. P. (1974). Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  12. Fleck, R. K. (1999). Electoral incentives, public policy, and the New Deal realignment. Southern Economic Journal, 63, 377–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleck, R. K. (2001a). Inter-party competition, intra-party competition, and distributive policy: A model and test using New Deal data. Public Choice, 108, 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleck, R. K. (2001b). Population, land, economic conditions, and the allocation of New Deal spending. Explorations in Economic History, 38, 296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleck, R. K. (2002). Democratic Opposition to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Journal of Economic History, 62(1), 25–54.Google Scholar
  16. Goff, B. L., & Grier, K. B. (1993). On the (mis)measurement of legislator ideology and shirking. Public Choice, 76(1–2), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffin, J. D. (2008). Measuring legislator ideology. Social Science Quarterly, 89(2), 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, J. E., & Kingdon, J. W. (1992). Ideology, interest group scores, and legislative votes. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 805–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahane, L. H. (1996). Congressional voting patterns on NAFTA. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 55(4), 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kantor, S., Fishback, P., & Wallis, J. J. (2013). Did the New Deal solidify the 1932 democratic realignment? Explorations in Economic History, 50, 620–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiewiet, D. R., & McCubbins, M. D. (1991). The logic of delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kyvig, D. E. (1979). Repealing national prohibition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Levitt, S. D. (1996). How do Senators vote? Disentangling the role of voter preferences, party affiliation, and senator ideology. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 425–551.Google Scholar
  24. Lott, J. R., Jr. (1987). Political cheating. Public Choice, 52(2), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marks, S. V. (1993). Economic Interests and voting on the omnibus trade bill of 1987. Public Choice, 75(1), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martis, K. C. (1982). The historical atlas of United States congressional districts, 1789–1983. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. McArthur, J., & Marks, S. (1988). Constituent interest vs. legislator ideology: The role of political opportunity cost. Economic Inquiry, 26(3), 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Okrent, D. (2010). Last call: The rise and fall of prohibition. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  29. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Poelmans, E., Raisanen, S., & Taylor, J. E. (2017). Three-two beer, one recovery: The ‘beer bill’ and the economic turnaround of spring 1933. Working paper.Google Scholar
  31. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1984). The polarization of American politics. The Journal of Politics, 46(4), 1061–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2007). Ideology and congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Reading, D. C. (1973). New Deal activity and the States. Journal of Economic History, 36, 792–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rohde, D. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rohde, D. (1994). Parties and committees in the House: Member motivations, issues, and institutional arrangements. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19(3), 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Selzter, A. J. (1995). The political economy of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Journal of Political Economy, 103(6), 1302–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steagall, J. W., & Jennings, K. (1996). Unions, PAC contributions, and the NAFTA vote. Journal of Labor Research, 17(3), 515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tosini, S. C., & Tower, E. (1987). The textile bill of 1985: The determinants of congressional voting patterns. Public Choice, 54(1), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tullock, G. (1989). The economics of special privilege and rent seeking. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wallis, J. J. (1984). The birth of old federalism: Financing the New Deal. Journal of Economic History, 44, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wallis, J. J. (1998). The political economy of New Deal spending revisited, again; with and without Nevada. Explorations in Economic History, 35, 140–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weller, N. (2009). Trading policy: Constituents and party in U.S. trade policy. Public Choice, 141, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright, G. (1974). The political economy of New Deal spending. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eline Poelmans
    • 1
  • John A. Dove
    • 2
  • Jason E. Taylor
    • 3
  1. 1.LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, Faculty of Economics and Business, Campus BrusselsKU LeuvenBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political EconomyTroy UniversityTroyUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsCentral Michigan UniversityMount PleasantUSA

Personalised recommendations