Italian Gambling Regulation: Justifications and Counter-Arguments

Kankainen

2018

IJSSP

Purpose Gambling is used to raise public funds through taxes, fees and direct contributions. The rent generated can be distributed through two basic models: absorbing the surplus into state budgets and institutions, or channeling funds to civil society organizations (CSOs). However, gambling also causes negative externalities. The purpose of this paper is to focus on how the beneficiaries of gambling in two societies representing these opposite models respond to the moral issue of accepting funds from a source that causes harm to some. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is conducted by applying the moral disengagement (MD) model to qualitative interviews conducted with beneficiaries of gambling in Finland and France. In Finland, the majority of gambling revenue is redistributed to CSOs, who also exercise a strong influence and are heavily involved in the system. In France, most gambling proceeds are directed to the central state, making other beneficiaries less powerful. Findings The results of this paper show that in France, where the state is a strong beneficiary, other actors express more political awareness and debate than in the Finnish model in which CSOs benefit and are tightly implicated in the system. On the other hand, the involvement of Finnish actors in the system encouraged them to accept moral responsibility for the harm caused by gambling. Originality/value The paper provides policymakers information on beneficiaries’ implication and position in different types of models of dividing the rent of gambling, and the academic audience with a comparative and sociological application of the MD model.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: And the Consumption Of Gambling Profitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beneficiaries of gambling and moral disengagement

Kankainen

2018

IJSSP

“…They contribute to the Sg in proportion to their size (Figure 1 above) through heavy taxation (Marionneau et al forthcoming), but they may have already passed the point where further game intensity is profitable to society, unless they can substantially reduce their distribution costs by moving online. The growth of the Italian market has been accompanied by a loss in the surplus since 2009 (Rolando & Scavarda, 2018). These companies are also heavily indebted to financial institutions (Rolando et al, 2020).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Commercial Gambling and the Surplus for Society

Sulkunen

Berret

et al. 2022

CGS

Background: Gambling is an important source of public revenue in many countries. Little is known about how this revenue is generated, and how it depends on product portfolios, operating costs, turnover, and the institutional contexts of the industry. Methods: A comparative analysis of income statements from 30 European gambling companies is reported. Scatter diagrams are used to describe how the surplus depends on volume, operating costs, monopoly status, and the game portfolio measured by aggregate return-to-players (RTP). Company profiles are used to interpret the results. Hypotheses: Commercialization increases aggregate return to players. This is likely to lower the surplus. Low operating costs of automated and fast games compensate for this loss. Commercial companies produce less surplus than monopolies. Results: The surplus is a linear function of the total revenue. Excluding three big companies, total volume is positively associated with the average return percentages but not proportionately with operating costs. The difference between monopolistic and market-based companies does not appear to be significant. Detailed descriptive analysis shows that the European gambling market may be facing a situation of supply saturation where further growth of gambling proceeds for good causes can no longer be accomplished.

“…In other European countries, such as Italy, different regional and provincial laws prevent gambling availability (Aronica, 2018). In the Italian region of Piedmont, EGMs cannot be placed closer than 500 metres to "sensitive locations", such as schools, churches, therapeutic communities, and ATMs (Rolando & Scavarda, 2018). In many cases, the regional laws permit local authorities to also identify other locations as sensitive.…”

Section: Limiting Egm Availability Reduces Consumption and Harmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gambling harms caused by electronic gambling machines should be prevented with state control

Järvinen-Tassopoulos

Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs

Nikkinen

2021

Unlike in other Nordic countries, most of the electronic gambling machines (EGMs) are placed outside the Casino Helsinki and the gambling arcades in Finland. The placement of EGMs in non-casino locations, such as supermarkets, kiosks, and petrol stations, is matter of serious concern. We argue that availability and accessibility of EGMs has led to normalisation and banalisation of gambling in Finland. Exposure to EGMs also put at risk vulnerable populations and problem gamblers, who already suffer from the negative consequences of gambling harms. Gambling companies’ self-regulation initiatives and corporate social responsibility programmes are not enough to prevent and limit EGM related gambling harms. We suggest that Finland should follow Norway’s example and limit the availability of EGMs and transfer them from non-casino locations to gambling arcades. Finnish EGM policy should be a question of public policy guided by public health concerns.