18.08.2013 Views

gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge

gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge

gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

THEORETICAL APPROACH<br />

PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING APPROACHES TO ASSESSING<br />

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS<br />

The specific theoretical approach used to study the effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> is a fundamentally<br />

important determ<strong>in</strong>ant <strong>of</strong> the results obta<strong>in</strong>ed, as well as the validity <strong>of</strong> these results.<br />

Unfortunately, there is considerable controversy about the appropriate theoretical and<br />

methodological approach to study<strong>in</strong>g <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> impacts. These issues have been the focus <strong>of</strong><br />

conferences (‘Whistler Symposium’ <strong>in</strong> British Columbia <strong>in</strong> 1999, the ‘Social and Economic Costs<br />

and Benefits <strong>of</strong> Gambl<strong>in</strong>g’ conference <strong>in</strong> Banff, Alberta <strong>in</strong> 2006); special issues <strong>of</strong> the Journal <strong>of</strong><br />

Gambl<strong>in</strong>g Studies (June 2003) and the Managerial and Decision Economics Journal (June 2004);<br />

books (Gr<strong>in</strong>ols, 2004; Morse & Goss, 2007; Walker, 2007); and many <strong>in</strong>dividual articles (Anielski<br />

& Braatan, 2008; Australian Productivity Commission, 1999; Azmier, Kelley, Todosichuk, 2001;<br />

Barretta, 2004; Centre for Social & Health Outcomes <strong>Research</strong> & Evaluation, 2006; Coll<strong>in</strong>s &<br />

Lapsley, 2003; Committee on the Social and Economic Impact <strong>of</strong> Pathological Gambl<strong>in</strong>g, 1999;<br />

Ead<strong>in</strong>gton, 2003; Gerste<strong>in</strong>, Volberg, Harwood, & Christiansen, 2004; Gr<strong>in</strong>ols, 2007; Gr<strong>in</strong>ols &<br />

Mustard, 2001; 2008; Gr<strong>in</strong>ols & Omorov, 1996; Hawke, 2000; Hayward & Colman, 2004;<br />

Henriksson, 2001; K<strong>in</strong>dt, 2003; Marfels, 1998; McGowan, 1999; O’Neil, Chandler, & SA Centre<br />

for Economic Studies, 2009; Persky, 1995; S<strong>in</strong>gle, 2003; Stevens & Williams, 2004; Victorian<br />

Gambl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Research</strong> Panel, 2001; Walker, 2003a, 2004, 2008a, 2008c, 2008d; Williams, 2011;<br />

Wynne & Shaffer, 2003).<br />

Despite all <strong>of</strong> this work there is still not an agreed upon approach for assess<strong>in</strong>g the<br />

socioeconomic impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong>. There rema<strong>in</strong> several contentious issues, with one <strong>of</strong> the<br />

central ones be<strong>in</strong>g how to capture and quantify the social impacts (Coll<strong>in</strong>s & Lapsley, 2003;<br />

Ead<strong>in</strong>gton, 2003; Walker, 2003a, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c).<br />

Some impact studies <strong>of</strong> <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> have simply ignored social impacts, choos<strong>in</strong>g to only measure<br />

the most apparent and obvious economic benefits that are easily quantifiable (e.g., <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />

revenue, tax revenue, employment numbers). Examples <strong>in</strong>clude Arthur Anderson’s (1997)<br />

study <strong>of</strong> U.S. cas<strong>in</strong>o <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong>, Littlepage et al.’s (2004) study <strong>of</strong> riverboat <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> Indiana,<br />

studies <strong>of</strong> the economic impacts <strong>of</strong> rac<strong>in</strong>os <strong>in</strong> Ontario (Br<strong>in</strong>kman & Weers<strong>in</strong>k, 2004;<br />

Econometric <strong>Research</strong> Limited, 2005), and the Canadian Gam<strong>in</strong>g Association’s analysis <strong>of</strong> the<br />

impacts <strong>of</strong> <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> Canada (HLT Advisory, 2008). However, this creates a very unbalanced<br />

analysis <strong>in</strong> that the positive economic impacts are not evaluated <strong>in</strong> the context <strong>of</strong> the negative<br />

social impacts. By way <strong>of</strong> example, it would be <strong>in</strong>appropriate if socioeconomic analyses <strong>of</strong> the<br />

effects <strong>of</strong> alcohol or tobacco just focused on the tax revenues, employment ga<strong>in</strong>s, support to<br />

the agricultural sector, and failed to mention the negative social impacts caused by<br />

consumption. However, fail<strong>in</strong>g to measure social impacts is not an <strong>in</strong>frequent occurrence <strong>in</strong> the<br />

socioeconomic analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong>.<br />

17

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!