gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge
gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge
gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge
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