Watching images of unemployed youth languishing in alcoholism and drug abuse in the slums and in other corners of our towns is terrifying.
The whirlwind of illicit brews has indiscriminately stripped the youth of their dignity and shattered their dreams of becoming productive and responsible citizens.
Credible data confirms that a loss of a generation and another is on the way. There have been isolated cries for help from women who have been unfairly shouldering most of the social cost of youth alcoholism.
However, over the years their voices have not been audible enough to stir collective action or attract the attention of policy makers.
Fortunately last week, their cries finally got the President’s attention. He summoned Members of Parliament from the affected regions and gave them four days to destroy the illicit brews.
The presidential directive was resoundingly greeted by public approval as evidenced by their enthusiastic participation in the onslaught.
To the public the directive was a serious indictment of the corrupt regulatory system that has failed to force the consumers and brewers to internalise the social cost of the illicit brews.
On the other hand, the legitimate brewers condemned the haphazard manner in which the directive was executed that resulted to loss of life and wanton destruction of property.
Clearly, this atrocious condition is a manifestation of a market failure because the pricing of these illicit brews does not take into account the social cost generated.
The condition is further exacerbated by the regulatory failure to correct such market failure due to corruption and the clandestine nature of illicit brewing.
Such social costs include low individual productivity, health care cost, loss of life and property, economic dependence on others, and alcohol addiction, among others.
Ideally in well functioning markets for alcoholic drinks, the prices must reflect the direct cost of production, including the implicit social cost generated.
The hush-hush nature of illicit brewing has understated the cost of production, which has translated to low prices that have stirred unprecedented alcohol consumption.
Admittedly the execution of the presidential directive has unfortunately resulted to unintended consequences of loss of property and life.
However, the initiative’s message is clear. That alcoholism is unsustainable and it is no longer business as usual.
The directive requires all stakeholders to bear responsibility for eradicating the scourge of alcoholism attributable to illicit brews.
The prescriptive remedy of this problem must balance trade-off of protecting the individual rights to consume alcohol against the society’s right not to bear the external cost associated with alcohol consumption.
To achieve such remedy demands an efficient regulatory system that forces the consumers and brewer to internalise the external cost that they generate. One strategy is to make production of illicit drinks very expensive.
In conclusion, we cannot afford the social cost of illicit and legitimate excessive youth alcohol consumption as we are witnessing now.
The burden of the highly anticipated economic take-off and its sustainability to the promised land of industrialised middle-income country status and beyond, is expected to rest on our youth’s shoulder.
Prof Kieyah is acting programmes director at KIPPRA.
PAYE Tax Calculator
Note: The results are not exact but very close to the actual.
