Transcript THE IMPACT OF GAMBLING IN COMMUNITIES

ASSESSING
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
OF GAMBLING
Dr. Harold Wynne
University of Alberta
WHY BOTHER?
Fish Are
Being Harmed
People Are
Being Harmed
Alberta Tar Sands
Problem Gambling
WHO’S DOING IT?
Canadian SEIAs
Canada
Vallaincourt & Roy (2000) – Canadian National level
United States
Blue Thorn Research (2006) – BC lower mainland
United Kingdom
Australia and NZ
Hann & Williams (in progress) – Belleville racino
Anielski et al. (in progress) – Nova Scotia provincial level
Williams et al. (in progress) – Alberta provincial level
WHO’S DOING IT?
American SEIAs
National Opinion Research Centre (1999) – Gambling impact in U.S.
Canada
U.S. General Accounting Office (2000) – Gambling impact in U.S.
United States
Garrett (2003) – Casino gambling in America
United Kingdom
ECONorthwest (2005) – Indian gaming in Oregon
Australia and NZ
Koo et al. (2005) – Casino gambling in Ohio
Rappaport Institute (2005) – Casino gambling in Massachusetts
Policy Analytics (2006) – Indiana’s riverboat casinos
WHO’S DOING IT?
United Kingdom SEIAs
Canada
NERA (2005) – Casino in the Wembley development area
United States
February 2008 – “Super Casino” for Manchester dumped
United Kingdom
Australia and NZ
PM Brown overturned PM Blair’s decision because of “fears the
negative social effects of promoting gambling would outweigh the
potential tax revenue and any regeneration benefits for Manchester”
The turnaround had been influenced by research into the
broader effects of casinos such as James Packer's
Crown casino in Melbourne.
WHO’S DOING IT?
Australia SEIAs
Canada
United States
United Kingdom
Australia and NZ
Australian Productivity Commission (1999) – socio-economic impacts
of gambling in Australia
Pinge (2001) – Impact of EGMs in Bendigo, Victoria
SA Centre for Economic Studies (2001) – impact of EGMs in South
Australia
SA Centre for Economic Studies (2005) – Community impacts of
EGMs in Victoria
SA Centre for Economic Studies (in progress) – Economic impacts of
Gambling in the South Australian community
New Zealand SEIAs
AIGR (2001) – socio-economic impacts of gambling in New Zealand
Adams (2004) – gambling impact assessment in Auckland
WHAT HAVE THEY DISCOVERED?
Blue Thorn Research (2006) – BC lower mainland
Purpose
• BC Government wanted to know costs/benefits of adding 4 new
venues in Vancouver, Langley, and Surrey (2 racinos & 2 casinos)
Canada
Method
• telephone survey; patron survey; key informant interviews
• estimating the “multiplier effect”
Conclusions
• 14 conclusions about social impact; 4 “trends” about PG
• no conclusions about the economic impact
Reported Limitations
• “Because of the small number of observations and available data
in the period after gaming venues were introduced, no statistically
valid multiplier estimates are available”
• “The impact analysis in this report is limited because it is based
on data collected shortly after the casino opening dates”
WHAT HAVE THEY DISCOVERED?
Policy Analytics (2006) – Indiana’s riverboat casinos
Purpose
• Indiana Legislative Council wanted to assess impact of
riverboat casinos system
United States
Method
• uses Grinols (2004) cost/benefit framework to measure specific
Costs/benefits in 7 areas to analyse player data
• compares counterfactual policy—what if Indiana had no casinos?
Conclusions
• “The benefits to Indiana citizens from Indiana’s policies of
licensing, regulating, and taxing ten riverboat casinos are
significantly larger than the costs”
Reported Limitations
• none
• Walker (2006) provides a “review” citing 7 major limitations
beginning with reliance on “one researchers perspective (i.e., Grinols)
WHAT HAVE THEY DISCOVERED?
NERA (2005) – Casino in the Wembley development area
Purpose
• identify the costs/benefits of a proposed casino for the WDA
• London Borough of Brent added “social impact” assessment
United Kingdom
Method
• framework from literature to identify benefits, costs, transfers
• used employment multiplier
• estimated day/night and foreign casino visitors
• considered comparator developments (hotel/office, residential)
Conclusions
• “The casino is more beneficial than either comparator over the four
year period although the scale of this benefit declines over time”
• “There will be a number of social impacts in Brent as a direct
result of the development of a new casino”
• “A casino will increase the rate of problem gambling locally and
any negative impacts will be felt disproportionately”
• Chinese population within the borough will be more likely to visit
a casino and may be more vulnerable
Reported Limitations
• GBDVS data are “significantly aggregated” which “introduces
measurement error into our distance measures”
WHAT HAVE THEY DISCOVERED?
SA Centre for Economic Studies (2005) –
Community impacts of EGMs in Victoria
Australia
And
New Zealand
Purpose
• “Not the role of the researchers to provide recommendations to the
Victorian or Western Australian Governments, as the primary aim of
this project was to report the impacts of different gambling
environments at the State and regional level.”
Method
• match Western Australia regions (no EGMs) with Victoria regions
•on key factors (7 pairs of regions)
• mail-out survey (N=7000); consultation with key stakeholders; analyse
available data, conduct surveys
Conclusions
• “From a public policy perspective it is likely that a more limited
number of destination centres would contribute significantly to harm
minimisation, the effectiveness of monitoring and regulation, industry
self-regulation, improved monitoring of programs such as self-exclusion
and the capacity to provide consumer protections.”
Reported Limitations
• “data limitations restrict definitive judgment on the impact of
gambling on many community services”
WHAT ARE THE
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS?
1. Analytical Framework is Needed
• careful consideration of candidate perspectives (Walker)
Research Implications
2. Data is Key and Often Limited
• small number of observations after venue opens (BC)
• data are often difficult to disaggregate (GBDVS)
3. Consider the Counterfactual and Comparators
• no casino (Indiana) or alternative developments (Wembley)
4. Consider Disproportionate Effects on Vulnerable Populations
• low income groups and Chinese population (Wembley)
5. Consider Assessing “Matched Pairs” of Communities
• compare West Australia (no EGMs) with Victoria (27,000 EGMs)
FINAL COMMENT
The size of the social costs—40 percent—of the costs of drug abuse—
are not so great that the economy cannot sustain them. The economy could
almost surely sustain the costs of three, four, or more social problems
of this size.
The question, however, is why should the economy accept an unnecessary social
cost? Unlike American prohibition of alcohol, which most regard as a failure,
criminalization and prohibition of casino gambling was successfully practiced for
most of the twentieth century. Perhaps we can learn ways to offer gambling
That do not lead to harmful consequences.
However, if not, the logical implication is to ask whether the experiment in the
present generation should be allowed to continue or should be reversed.
Earl Grinols. Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits. 2004