gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge

allocated either directly or indirectly to economic stimulation (tourism, industry development,
advanced education and technology) and another portion goes to paying the private sector to
deliver service.
However, as already indicated, at a provincial regional level, there is no evidence that gambling
has caused a significant redirection of business away from the private sector. Even if it had, and
even if government and charity sectors are less efficient generators of wealth, the amount of
gambling revenue involved (i.e., < 1% of GDP) is too small to have much of an effect on overall
Alberta economic development. However, at a First Nations community level, there is
unambiguous evidence that gambling revenue received by First Nations bands has been used to
fund successful private ventures.
A final important consideration is the fact that provincial government provision and capture of
almost all gambling revenue ensures that this revenue stays in Alberta and is used for the
benefit of Albertans. This would not likely occur to the same extent with private sector delivery
and capture as some of these profits would be used to fund ventures and shareholders in other
jurisdictions.
5. When the failure to implement the economic activity would have resulted in a change to
#1, #2, or #3.
Even if there is not a clear economic gain, an economic benefit still exists if the gambling
activity prevented assets or money from leaving the jurisdiction, prevented a decrease in the
value of existing assets, or prevented decreased utilization of existing money.
An important justification for introducing local forms of gambling in Alberta (and almost all
other provinces and states) was to stem monetary flow to neighbouring jurisdictions. However,
as indicated under point #1, it seems more likely that monetary outflow would have been lower
if domestic forms had not been introduced. However, even if domestic gambling inadvertently
increased monetary outflow, the economic value of this loss is not that significant.
278