The density of electronic gambling machines and area-level socioeconomic status in Finland: a country with a legal monopoly on gambling and a decentralised system of EGMs

Abstract

Background Electronic gambling machines (EGMs) are considered a risky form of gambling. Internationally, studies have reported that the density of EGMs tends to be higher in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas than in more advantaged ones. We examined whether this holds true in the Finnish context where a decentralised system of EGMs guarantees wide accessibility to this form of gambling. More precisely, we investigated the association between the density of EGMs and area-level socio-economic status (SES). Methods The primary measure was the EGM density, referring to the number of EGMs per 1000 adults. The area-level SES was defined on the basis of the median income of inhabitants, the proportion of unemployment in the area and educational attainment (% of those beyond primary education). Three additional area characteristics were used as control variables in the analyses; the overall population density, economic activity (the number of jobs in the area per employed inhabitant), and the mean age of the inhabitants. Analyses were based on linear regression. Results The EGM density was 3.68 per 1000 inhabitants ( SD = 2.63 ). A lower area-level SES was correlated with a higher EGM density. In further analyses, this effect was mostly explained by the income of the inhabitants. Of the control variables, the population density had no detectable effect on the EGM density while areas with a higher mean age of the inhabitants, as well a higher density of jobs, had more EGMs. Conclusions EGMs are unequally located in Finland, with more EGMs located in socio-economically less advantaged areas. The higher machine density in areas of social disadvantage is not in line with the aim of the Finnish gambling policy, which is to prevent and reduce harm caused by gambling. Changes in policy are required, especially with regard to the decisions on the placement of EGMs. This should not be made solely by gaming operators and/or from fiscal perspectives.

Setting Limits: Gambling, Science and Public Policy—summary of results

“…Access to electronic gambling machines (EGMs) and video lottery terminals (VLTs) outside casinos is associated with participation and problem gambling in cross‐sectional studies [62, 63]. However, such correlations may also result from other factors; for instance, the machines are often concentrated in economically deprived neighbourhoods [64, 65]. Studies on access restricted by governments suggest that limitations must be substantial to have effects.…”

Interaction of Socioeconomic Status with Risky Internet Use, Gambling and Substance Use in Adolescents from a Structurally Disadvantaged Region in Central Europe

“…Elgar´s study [ 14 ] suggested that youth who live in economically unequal settings and perceive a lack of social support are at higher risk of disordered gambling. The relationship between gambling and SES might be also explained by the higher density of electronic gambling machines in areas with lower SES [ 15 ]. Based on a longitudinal study, Auger et al [ 16 ] showed that individuals with lower SES and impulsivity had earlier age of gambling onset.…”

The Relationship Between Unexpected Outcomes and Lottery Gambling Rates in a Large Canadian Metropolitan Area

“…While the effect sizes of the sunshine-and sports-based prediction errors observed in the present study are rather subtle compared to these SES effects, the generality of the prediction error effects (particularly with respect to sunshine) across geographies is noteworthy. Moving forward, it would be beneficial to investigate the number of retailers within each FSA and its relation to lottery purchases, as previous studies have found that the density of electronic gambling machines was negatively correlated with SES (Raisamo et al, 2019). Relatedly, online lottery ticket purchasing was introduced by OLG at the beginning of 2015 (midway through the period we analyzed), but our dataset only covers in-person lottery ticket purchases.…”