Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:51:20.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What We Know about the Comparative Effectiveness of Gambling Regulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Simon Planzer  and
Heather Wardle
Simon Planzer
Affiliation:
University of St. Gallen HSG, Zürich
Heather Wardle
Affiliation:
NatCen Social Research (London) and University of Glasgow,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Towards the end of 2011, the Responsible Gambling Fund published a report which, inter alia, offers an overview of the research gaps in relation to the comparative effectiveness of gambling regulation. In the present article, the authors of the report provide a summary of the main findings. They conclude that hardly any empirical evidence is available that addresses, directly or indirectly, this subject. In view of further research, a set of recommendations is provided.

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 410 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 <http://www.responsiblegamblingtrust.org.uk/> (last accessed on 16 July 2012).

2 Similar to the practice of other scholars, the notion ‘disordered gambling’ is used as an overarching term for ‘problem gambling’ (sub-clinical) and ‘pathological gambling’ (clinical). For the (revised) clinical criteria of pathological gambling (new: ‘gambling disorder’) see the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (‘DSM’) that is currently under revision. DSM-5 is due for publication in May 2013. <http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision/pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=210> (last accessed on 16 July 2012).

3 The present article is a summarised and adjusted version of the original report. Among other aspects, comments specific to the UK are not considered in this article. The full report is available on the Internet at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2045052> (last accessed on 16 July 2012) as well as on <http://www.planzer-law.com/> (last accessed on 16 July 2012). The research for the report was financially supported by the RGF. The authors do not have personal interests in the RGF nor the RGT that would suggest a conflict of interest.

4 This is a recognised assessment methodology recommended by the British Government Social Research Unit.

5 Another report by RAND Europe, which was also mandated by the RGF, inquired into self-regulation at industry or company level. Their report is available on the Internet at <http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2011/RAND_TR1013.pdf> (last accessed on 16 July 2012).

6 One project was identified that directly addresses the comparative effectiveness of different regulatory approaches. The manuscript for a forthcoming publication is with the authors (Simon Planzer, Heather Gray and Howard Shaffer). The regulatory data and prevalence rates collected during this project are available on the Internet at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2045073> (last accessed on 16 July 2012) .

7 LaBrie, Richard and Shaffer, Howard, “Toward a science of gambling regulation: a concept statement”, 2(2) AGA Responsible Gaming Series (2003), pp. 1–7 Google Scholar.

8 Chambers, Clare and Wilcox, Craig, “Gambling on compliance with the new 2005 act: Do organisations fulfil regulations”, 23(3) International review of law, computers and technology (2009), pp.2003–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Bondolfi, Guido, Jermann, Francoise, Ferrero, F., Zullino, Daniele and Osiek, Christian, “Prevalence of pathological gambling in Switzerland after the opening of casinos and the introduction of new prevention initiatives”, 117(3) Acta Psychiatr Scand. (2008), pp. 236–269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Prior to the entry into effect of the current gambling act, ‘casino-like venues’ in Switzerland could only be run under very strict conditions and small stakes.

10 Exposure theory argues that an increase of an environmental toxin (e.g., increased availability of gambling) leads to a proportionate increase of adverse reactions (e.g., disordered gambling) within the population (dose-response relationship). Adaptation theory postulates that new environmental factors (e.g., gambling offers) may initially lead to an increase of adverse reactions (e.g., disordered gambling); over time, however, individuals manage to adapt and the adverse reactions decrease in the population ( LaPlante, Debi and Shaffer, Howard. “Understanding the Influence of Gambling Opportunities: Expanding Exposure Models to Include Adaptation”, 77(4) American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (2007), pp. 616–623 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed). This report does not further inquire into the complex field of exposure model versus adaptation model and the relevant numerous prevalence studies. Bondolfi et al.'s study was chosen as it reflects rather recent data and assesses the prevalence rates prior and posterior to a significant change in a regulatory approach.

11 Jacques, Christian and Ladouceur, Robert, “A Prospective Study of the Impact of Opening a Casino on Gambling Behaviours: 2- and 4-Year Follow-Ups”, 51(12) Can J of Psychiatry (2006), pp. 764–773 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

12 Blaszczynski, Alex, “To formulate gambling policies on the premise that problem gambling is an addiction may be premature”, 100(9) Addiction (2005), pp.1230–1Google ScholarPubMed; Shaffer, Howard, “From disabling to enabling the public interest: Natural transitions from gambling exposure to adaptation and self-regulation”, 100(9) Addiction (2005), pp.1227–9Google ScholarPubMed; Korn, David, Gibbins, Roger and Azmier, Jason, “Framing public policy towards a public health paradigm for gambling”, 19(2) Journal of Gambling Studies (2003), pp.235–56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Korn, David, “Expansion of gambling in Canada: implications for health and social policy”, 163(1) CMAJ (2000), pp. 61–64 Google ScholarPubMed; Blaszczynski, Alex, Ladouceur, Robert and Shaffer, Howard, “A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno Model”, 20 Journal of Gambling Studies (2004), pp.301–317 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

13 Light, Roy, “The Gambling Act 2005: Regulatory containment and market control”, 70(4) Modern Law Review (2007), pp.626–653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adams, Peter, Raeburn, John and de Silva, Kawshi, “A question of balance: prioritizing public health responses to harm from gambling”, 104(5) Addiction (2009), pp.688–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Adams, Peter, Buetow, Stephen and Rossen, Fiona, “Vested interests in addiction research and policy poisonous partnerships: health sector buy-in to arrangements with government and addictive consumption industries”, 105(4) Addiction (2010), pp. 585–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Adams, Peter, Raeburn, John and de Silva, Kawshi, “Gambling beneficiaries having their cake and eating it: the attractions of avoiding responsible gambling regulation”, 104(5) Addiction (2009), pp. 697–698 Google Scholar; Orford, Jim, “Disabling the public interest: gambling strategies and policies for Britain”, 100(9) Addiction (2005), pp. 1219–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See further Borrell, Jennifer, “The Public Accountability Approach: suggestions for a framework to characterise, compare, inform and evaluate gambling regulation”, 6 International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2008), pp.265–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Malcolm Sparrow, “Can the Internet be effectively regulated? Managing the risks”, December 2, 2009, available on the Internet at <http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/sparrow.pdf> (last accessed on 16 July 2012). See further Jamie Wiebe and Michael Lipton, “An overview of Internet Gambling Regulations”, Submitted to the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, August 2008, available on the Internet at <http://www.gamblingresearch.org/applydownload.php?docid=11002> (last accessed on 16 July 2012).

15 Regional Index of Gambling Exposure (‚RIGE’), see Shaffer, Howard, LaBrie, Richard and LaPlante, Debi, “Laying the foundation for quantifying regional exposure to social phenomena: Considering the case of legalized gambling as a public health toxin”, 18(1) Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (2004), pp.40–48 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.