In this paper is presented an analysis of the consumption patterns of beer, wine and spirits for Australia using data for the period 1955/561985/86. The validity of the demand theory hypotheses demand homogeneity and Slutsky symmetry has been tested using recently developed distribution-free procedures. The findings were that (i) beer and wine were necessities and spirits a strong luxury; (ii) beer and spirits are specific complements; and (iii) the homogeneity and symmetry hypotheses are acceptable. Preference for wine consumption seems to be independent of preference for beer and spirits.
In trod uctionThe consumption of alcoholic beverages is of interest to economists for at least three reasons. First, there is the basic challenge to analyse the extent to which alcohol consumption is amenable to economic analysis. Second, in many countries alcohol is heavily taxed. This raises interesting issues in public finance such as the welfare cost of these taxes, optimal taxation and externalities. Third, in many cases alcohol data are better than most as their basic source is the tax collection records,The application of the system-wide approach was initiated by Clements and Johnson (1983) who estimated demand equations for beer, wine and spirits. Other studies on this area include Adrian and Ferguson (1987), Clements and E. A. Selvanathan (1987), Duffy (1987), Fuss and Waverman (1987), Heien and Pompelli (1989), Holm (1989), Johnsonetal. (1990, Jones (1989), Pearce (1986), Penm (1988, Quek (1988>, E. A. Selvanathan (1988) andWong (1988). In this paper previous research on alcohol is extended in a number of directions.These extensions include the use of new distribution-free procedures (which do not require any asymptotic theory) to test the validity of the hypotheses of demand homogeneity and Slutsky symmetry; the identification of a structure of preferences whereby wine consumption * This paper is a shorter version of Clements and S . Selvanathan (1989). which is available on request. We would like to acknowledge the help of Chen Dongling and comments from Donald MacLaren, David Johnson and an anonymous referee. 209 0