The gambling industry has grown into a global business in the 21st century. This has created the need for a new emphasis on problem prevention. This article highlights the core themes of the book Setting Limits: Gambling, Science and Public Policy, taking a broad view of the consequences of gambling for society as a burden on health, well‐being and equality. The book covers the extent of gambling and gambling‐related problems in different societies and presents a critical review of research on industry practices, policy objectives and preventive approaches, including services to people suffering from gambling and its consequences. It discusses the developments in game characteristics and gambling environments and provides evidence on how regulation can affect those. Effective measures to minimize gambling harm exist and many are well supported by scientific evidence. They include restrictions on general availability as well as selective measures to prevent gamblers from overspending. The revenue generated from gambling for the industry, governments, and providers of public services funded from gambling returns presents an obstacle to developing policies to implement harm‐reduction measures. A public interest approach must weigh these interests against the suffering and losses of the victims of gambling.

Commercial gambling has developed in the past few decades into a complex enterprise that is at once a recreational activity, a global profit-making industry, and a potentially harmful behavior. New technologies, large for-profit corporations, and extended legalization, have changed the contexts and traditional roles of gambling. Using a public interest framework, this book discusses gambling policies that will best serve the public good. The book critically evaluates the scientific research on regulations designed to prevent or reduce the individual and collective harm from the activity. Efficient methods have a high probability of success if adequate consideration is given to the complexity of the problems. The difficulty is political: the use of these methods most likely conflicts with financial considerations. Problem users bring in the largest share of the money to the trade. Preventing gambling-related harm is rarely possible without limiting the overall volume of the activity.

This chapter summarizes the evidence from previous chapters, leading to three basic conclusions. First, gambling has both malign and benign redistributing effects. The benign effects are those that help fund necessary social activities; the malign effects are those that make the poor even poorer and the unhappy even unhappier. Second, gambling is concentrated in a very small group of heavy users, most of whom can ill afford to fund the benign effects. Third, gambling problems reinforce other vulnerabilities. These three conclusions make gambling policy an issue of distributive justice. Evidence shows that prevention of gambling problems, treatment, and harm reduction measures can be successful, if consideration is given to the complexity of the problems themselves. Government revenue and funding toward good causes from gambling create dependencies that may influence policymaking. Gambling regulation should be separated from both of those interests.

No abstract

Aims: This article assesses the efficiency of six Nordic state-controlled gambling companies in raising revenue for their host societies, and the terms under which they operate. Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway have established gambling monopolies on the grounds that they help to prevent fraud and money laundering, and channel proceeds to their host societies. Within the last decade, Denmark (2012) and Sweden (2019) have opened substantial parts of their gambling markets to competition, whereas Finland and Norway continue to uphold monopolies. Design: The analysis is based on publicly disclosed income statements and financial reporting concerning Nordic gambling operators for the year 2017. We calculated how much they contribute to societies, what are the costs, and how these figures compare among the companies. Results: We found that Veikkaus raises the highest amounts of surplus to society both in absolute terms and in relative numbers, and that, overall, the companies vary in efficiency. We discuss the reasons for these differences, focusing on their respective product portfolios, institutional frameworks and competitive market positions. Conclusions: The results problematise the measurement of efficiency in gambling companies in monetary terms. Efficiency depends on high total consumption with little regard to the principles of responsible gambling and the prevention of gambling problems. Nordic countries have a strong commitment to the protection of health, but in the case of gambling, protecting the monopoly seems to outweigh harm prevention.

Aims The principles of free trade and free circulation of services within the European Union have created pressures to make the strictly controlled European gambling markets more open. According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, restrictions on gambling are only allowed if they are justified in admissible terms of consumer protection, prevention of criminal activity and protection of public order. This study compares the gambling laws of two European societies, France and Finland, to analyse how their legal frames of gambling have been adjusted to these principles. Design The data consists of up-to-date legislation on gambling in Finland and France. A qualitative analysis was conducted to study whether new ways of justifying have been included in legislative texts and if these are substantiated by measures related to consumer protection or crime prevention. Results France has mainly justified its restrictive policies on gambling in terms of preventing criminal activities while the Finnish legislation highlights the charitable causes funded by gambling proceeds, a claim not accepted by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Consumer protection is increasingly stressed in both countries, and the range of rationales has also grown notably since 2007. Conclusion While the vocabularies of justification accepted by the CJEU have expanded since 2007, these have not been substantiated by many new legislative measures. This is not attributed to political ill will but rather to the difficulty of changing existing legislative traditions.

No abstract

No abstract