Citizens’ Perceptions of Gambling Regulation Systems: A New Meaning-Based Approach

Abstract

This study fills a gap in gambling research by inquiring into the ways in which people make sense of their country’s gambling policy as a comprehensive logic with interrelated facets. Nineteen focus group interviews were conducted with 88 persons in Helsinki, Finland. The interview protocol involved discussion stimuli and tasks. The study participants expressed the view that the public image and function of gambling provision involves a great deal of contradictory elements. Even though the existing monopoly system was given approval in terms of yielding funding to good causes, the interviewees were still critical of how the monopoly system worked when it comes to advertising, availability, and customer loyalty programs. A core dilemma identified was whether the system aims to prevent gambling-related problems or whether it does, in fact, promote gambling consumption. If skilfully executed, the study method can be fruitful for discerning core logical inconsistencies in the gambling regulation systems of other countries as well.RésuméL’étude comble une lacune dans la recherche sur les jeux de hasard en s’interrogeant sur la manière dont les gens perçoivent la politique de jeu de leur pays en tant que modèle logique complet avec facettes interdépendantes. On a effectué dix-neuf entrevues dans des groupes de discussion regroupant 88 personnes à Helsinki, en Finlande. Le protocole d’entrevue comportait des points de discussion et des tâches. Les participants à l’étude ont exprimé l’opinion voulant que l’image publique et la fonction de l’offre de jeu comprennent beaucoup d’éléments contradictoires. Même si le système de monopole existant avait l’approbation du public en raison du soutien financier apporté à de bonnes causes, les personnes interrogées étaient tout de même critiques à l’égard du monopole et de son fonctionnement en ce qui concerne la publicité, l’offre et les programmes de fidélisation des clients. On a relevé un important dilemme, à savoir si le système visait à prévenir les problèmes de jeu ou s’il favorisait en fait la consommation de jeux. Habilement appliquée, la méthode d’étude peut servir à démontrer les incohérences logiques fondamentales dans les systèmes de réglementation de jeux de hasard d’autres pays également.

A scoping review of gambling policy research in Europe

“…The first category focuses on the slow but constant liberalisation of the gambling market in Europe, in line with the incremental model (Dror, 1968). In most European countries, gambling policies have shared a similar trajectory towards less restrictive models and the dismantling of monopoly structures, with the notable exceptions of Finland and Norway (Borch, 2018; Jensen, 2017; Lerkkanen et al, 2020). A variety of explanations are given to the adoption of liberal policies.…”

Self-exclusion from gambling: A toothless tiger?

“…Countries had to develop strategies suited to supporting the line of argumentation that a (partially) regulated online gambling market could curb the previous black market and steer online gambling into controllable channels. Consequently, in Finland, Norway, and Sweden (until 2019), the increased focus on gambling-related problems and emphasis on the responsible nature of monopolybased systems to tackle these problems made it possible to keep the monopoly and even expand its activities to the Internet (1,30). Recently, Germany opened the sports betting market for commercial providers and now accepts online provisions of sports and horse betting, casino games, virtual gambling machines and poker (31).…”

The Political Analyst's Field Guide to Finland

“…Even if the system's ability to provide resources for the third sector, which partly supplements the welfare system, is often used as justification in public discussions 218 , it is not cited as justification in official documents 219,220 . On closer inspection, another paradox emerges: very few people seem to think that the TS work should be funded by resources that are largely drawn from the pockets of people suffering from gambling problems 221 . In view of the accountability of the WFS system, this is seen as simply inconsistent with the values and principle order of the Nordic welfare state model (ibid.…”