Blog of Q's

This isn’t an editorial of ours, but amazing article from the Wall Street Journal On-Line.

By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
July 13, 2005; Page A14

W.C. Fields once recommended, ‘Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake.’ Traditionally, practical rationales for drinking were unconvincing, at best. More recently, however, alcohol’s reputation has improved as new benefits from drinking have come to light. Best known are the studies showing the health benefits of moderate alcohol use. It is now so well established that it is almost a clich�that red wine lowers the risk of heart disease. A new study by researchers at the National Cancer Institute also claims that drinkers may have a lower risk of lymphoma than nondrinkers.

Economists assert that benefits from alcohol are also financial, showing that moderate drinking is associated with higher earnings. If two workers are identical in education, age, and other characteristics except that the first has a couple of beers each night after work while the second is a teetotaler, the first will tend to enjoy a ‘drinker’s bonus’ in the range of 10% to 25% higher wages. (Don’t get carried away with this information, though. Research also shows that beyond about two drinks per day, wages start to fall.)

While it is clear that drinking and prosperity are related, the reasons why are still obscure. Some economists believe that the health benefits of moderate drinking make for greater productivity. Others argue that alcohol is a social lubricant: People who drink together get along better, and make deals. Another possibility is that people who enjoy professional success tend to experience pressure, and so ‘self-medicate.’ Whatever the reason, a little drinking might seem like a pleasant way to invest in one’s career.

Recently, while toasting the drinker’s bonus with a friend, he asked me whether drinking might not be related to virtuous behavior as well: Are moderate drinkers more likely to give to charity? A worthy question, so I did a bit of analysis and found that, indeed, moderate drinkers tend to be more charitable than nondrinkers. For example, 54% of nondrinkers contribute to charity each year, giving away an average of $1,100. In contrast, 62% of those who take one to two drinks per day have an average annual giving level of $1,200. The alcohol effect has diminishing returns, however: Just 40% of people drinking five or more drinks per day are donors, and they give only $230 per year on average. (So once you get past two or three, you have to stop claiming you’re ‘doing it for a good cause.’)

The only exception to the pattern of ‘charity drinking’ is the case of giving to religious organizations, which sees a negative impact from alcohol use. For all other types of donations — to the poor, hospitals, schools, the arts, international aid, etc. — drinking pushes giving up.

Perhaps you are thinking that this is just a side-effect of income or education differences between moderate drinkers and abstainers. After all, teetotalers have lower average incomes than social drinkers, which might explain why they give less away. But the matter is more complex. Compare two people who are the same in terms of income, education and even religion, but where one drinks moderately and the other doesn’t: The drinker will give between $50 and $100 more to charity each year.

Shakespeare’s Pericles warned that, one sin ‘another doth provoke.’ In the case of booze, however, the good news is that one sin a few virtues doth provoke. So what’s the practical advice in all this? As summer broils you, pour yourself a cool drink and raise your glass to your favorite charity. But stop at two and don’t forget to write the check.

Mr. Brooks is associate professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.