Comment on Kindt's paper

Eadington, William R.

doi:10.1002/mde.1173

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These authors are staunch anti‐gambling activists, and their writing reflects this. For example, they fail to cite any literature that disagrees with their perspective or that might lead a reader to believe that there is debate on the issues (Eadington 2004; Walker 2007b). Anti‐gambling advocates also typically include any “costs” that can be remotely linked to gambling, without giving justification.…”

Section: Problems In Cost‐benefit Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Questions about research quality/legitimacy have been raised in comprehensive analyses (Australian Productivity Commission (APC) 1999; National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) 1999; National Research Council (NRC) 1999: chap. 5), as well as in more narrow critiques (Walker and Barnett 1999; Eadington 2004; Walker 2004). The NRC (1999: 186) explains that “most [studies] have appeared as reports, chapters in books, or proceedings at conferences, and those few that have been subject to peer review have, for the most part, been descriptive pieces.” The result has been questionable, if not counterproductive, research:…”

Section: Problems In Cost‐benefit Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 5 For a discussion of biases in the gambling literature, and in particular the Managerial and Decision Economics issue on gambling edited by Grinols and Mustard, see Eadington (2004). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 13 One of the best examples of poor scholarship in the economics of casino gambling is demonstrated by Kindt (2001). However, rather than examining that work here, interested readers can read published comments on that paper, including those by Eadington (2004), Levy (2004), and Walker (2004). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Problems in Quantifying the Social Costs and Benefits of Gambling

Walker

2007

American J Econ Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As casinos and other forms of gambling spread across the United States, voters and policymakers are becoming increasingly interested in the potential costs and benefits from expansion in gambling industries. Since the mid-1990s, a variety of cost-benefit research has been published, much of it using flawed methodologies. This paper examines some of the most important areas of debate and disagreement among gambling researchers, and explains why the quantification of the costs and benefits of gambling is problematic.

show abstract

Section: Problems In Cost‐benefit Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Problems In Cost‐benefit Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 5 For a discussion of biases in the gambling literature, and in particular the Managerial and Decision Economics issue on gambling edited by Grinols and Mustard, see Eadington (2004). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%