National Market Protectionist Gambling Policies in the European Union: The Finnish Gambling Monopoly Merger as a Case in Point

Abstract

A rapidly growing globalized and digitalized gambling industry has compelled European jurisdictions to take action in order to secure some level of gambling market control, to secure public funds from gambling, and to protect citizens from gambling-related harm. This study concerns the market protectionist endeavour to merge three gambling operators into one state-owned monopoly in Finland in 2017. The justification of the systemic change is analysed in key policy documents and media reporting that discerns the political narratives that nudged the monopoly merger from the idea stage to its completion. Within the narratives, the merger is presented as necessary due to the threats of market intrusion by foreign gambling operators and the likelihood of an internal system implosion framed by European Union (EU) law. The worries expressed in the studied materials plug into a general zeitgeist of globalization. The justifications of the systemic change presuppose the inevitable determination of the change and an innate and constant human desire to gamble. Critical views on the merger were introduced in the media at a late stage, stressing the role of the media as a facilitator and manufacturer of political consent. The study demonstrates how market protectionist justifications can, through the maintenance of a regulated gambling market, assure preservation of national public funds obtained from gambling in the EU. The official gambling policy objective of securing public health played a secondary role in the process.RésuméLa croissance fulgurante de l’industrie du jeu, mondialisée et numérisée, a incité les autorités européennes à prendre des mesures afin d’assurer un certain contrôle sur ce marché, de garantir les fonds publics provenant du jeu et de protéger les citoyens des dommages liés au jeu. Cette étude porte sur la tentative protectionniste de la Finlande de fusionner trois exploitants de jeux d’argent en un monopole d’État en 2017. On analyse les raisons justifiant le changement systémique dans des documents politiques clés et des reportages dans les médias en mettant en évidence le contenu narratif politique qui a conduit à la fusion du monopole, depuis la naissance de l’idée jusqu’à sa concrétisation. Dans ce contenu narratif, la fusion est présentée comme une nécessité en raison des menaces d’intrusion par des exploitants de jeux étrangers et la probabilité d’une implosion du système interne encadré par le droit de l’UE. Les inquiétudes exprimées dans les documents analysés cadrent avec une tendance généralisée à l’égard de la mondialisation. Les fondements qui sous-tendent ce changement systémique présupposent l’inévitabilité du changement et un désir inné et constant de jouer chez l’être humain. Les points de vue critiques sur la fusion sont présentés tardivement dans les médias, ce qui confirme le rôle des médias comme facilitateur et créateur de consentement politique. L’étude montre que les justifications protectionnistes du marché peuvent, par le maintien d’une réglementation du marché des jeux, garantir l’apport de fonds publics nationaux générés par les jeux de hasard dans l’UE. L’objectif officiel de la politique en matière de jeu visant à protéger la santé publique a joué un rôle de second plan dans le processus.

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

“…The lack of this kind of research is a deficit in existing gambling policy knowledge, not the least because of the important societal interests and stakeholders involved. Thus far, the people who have pointed out contradictions and weaknesses in gambling policy systems have been stakeholders or researchers who are basing their judgements on reports and previous research (see, e.g., Marionneau et al, 2018;Selin et al, 2019). This study has developed a protocol for empirically inquiring into both spontaneous and more well thought-out common sense-making by people who are weighing in on systemic weaknesses and strengths.…”

“…The generation of revenue as the main justification for the gambling monopoly has, as mentioned in the introduction, been prevalent in Finnish society. It is a dogmatic belief that has been shown to permeate popular media discussions (Lerkkanen, 2019) and authorities' utterances (Selin et al, 2019), and it is also prevalent in population surveys (Salonen et al, 2018). A peculiarity of the Finnish gambling regulation system is thus that the justification of securing revenue for good causes appears in an almost consensus-like manner in the arguments of different sectors of society.…”

“…In 2017, the three Finnish gambling monopoly operators were merged into a single state-owned monopoly operator, Veikkaus Ltd. 1 Because of the principle of subsidiarity in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it is possible to sustain national monopolies in certain areas for safeguarding national control over matters that are of greater value for societies than competitive policy and not better achieved at the union level (see, e.g., Blum & Logue, 1998). The most important and publicly justified argument for the continuation of the Finnish gambling monopoly in the format of a newly merged singular operator was its potential for reducing financial, social, and health problems caused by gambling (Selin et al, 2019). According to the comparative study on the justification of national gambling policies in Finland and France, both countries did indeed adapt the idea of harm reduction and problem prevention of gambling in their legislative rationales, but this remained to a large degree a cosmetic change (Marionneau, 2015a).…”

The Political Analyst's Field Guide to Finland

“…The official justification for the state gambling monopoly is the assumed ability of a monopoly system to control gambling-related harm. 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 .…”

Association between public opinion of gambling policies, gambling behavior and demographics: a national survey in Finland

“…This has, according to several studies, contributed to the high public acceptability of gambling and the monopoly system (A. H. Salonen et al, 2017;Lerkkanen et al, 2020;Matilainen, 2017). With a view to the dependence of the society on the gambling revenue many researchers have argued that there has not been political will to implement supply reductions and harm minimization policies have been often compensated with revenue-increasing policies (Selin, 2019;Selin et al, 2019).…”