gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge

product or service versus what they actually pay. The utility of this approach is that it provides
a more tangible quantification of one of the primary positive impacts of gambling that is often
not taken into account when assessing the costs and benefits of gambling, and it also serves as
a counterpoint to the more tangible monetary costs of gambling.
However, there are both theoretical and practical difficulties with this approach. The main
theoretical problem concerns whether it is appropriate to apply monetary quantification to
something that is primarily non-monetary in its nature and value (i.e., leisure activity). The
argument made in the first section of this paper is that it is a mistake to try to quantify social
impacts (e.g., suicide, divorce, psychic trauma of being a problem gambler, leisure benefits) into
monetary terms. A more practical problem concerns the fact that trying to calculate consumer
surplus for gambling is very difficult, as a) demand for gambling is not independent of its legal
availability, b) it is unclear how to reliably establish what gamblers would be willing to pay for
this service, c) a significant portion of the demand and consumption of this service comes from
problem gamblers (Williams & Wood, 2004, 2007) (i.e., it is difficult to argue they derive benefit
from their addictive consumption).
Quality of Life/Public Health/Social Capital/Subjective Well-Being
Arguably the most important consideration in examining gambling impacts is its overall impact
on the quality of people’s lives. Some people have argued that legalized gambling promotes
capitalism and materialism, which are not necessarily conducive to social and societal harmony.
Other people argue that this is true, but that gambling and a capitalistic orientation also
promotes risk-taking and entrepreneurship, which is fundamental to economic success, and
thereby, societal well-being. 66 Yet another argument is that gambling is not compatible with
genuine entrepreneurship as it tends to promote the notion that something can be gained for
nothing.
Unfortunately, impacts in this area are also the most difficult to measure. One problem
concerns some lack of agreement on what constitutes ‘quality of life’ and how it should be
measured. The second problem concerns the need for great scientific rigour in empirically
disentangling these effects. For example, it is just as likely that western society’s
capitalistic/materialistic orientation is part of the reason why people have increasingly engaged
in gambling and why political leaders have increasingly legalized it. (Although a more important
reason likely concerns society’s increased liberal attitudes toward historically prohibited
activities such as prostitution, substance use, sexual orientation, etc.).
From a theoretical perspective it may be unrealistic to anticipate gambling to have population
wide impacts on quality of life, when regular gambling involvement occurs in just a small
66 Indeed, the research literature shows that the most common report of improved quality of life associated with
gambling occurs with the introduction of a successful casino hosted by an impoverished U.S. Aboriginal community
(Williams, Rehm, & Stevens, 2011).
150