Setting Win Limits: An Alternative Approach to "Responsible Gambling"?

Social scientists, governments, and the casino industry have all emphasized the need for casino patrons to "gamble responsibly." Strategies for responsible gambling include self-imposed time limits and loss limits on gambling. Such strategies help prevent people from losing more than they can afford and may help prevent excessive gambling behavior. Yet, loss limits also make it more likely that casino patrons leave when they are losing. Oddly, the literature makes no mention of "win limits" as a potential approach to responsible gambling. A win limit would be similar to a loss limit, except the gambler would leave the casino upon reaching a pre-set level of winnings. We anticipate that a self-imposed win limit will reduce the gambler's average loss and, by default, also reduce the casino's profit. We test the effect of a self-imposed win limit by running slot machine simulations in which the treatment group of players has self-imposed and self-enforced win and loss limits, while the control group has a self-imposed loss limit or no limit. We find that the results conform to our expectations: the win limit results in improved player performance and reduced casino profits. Additional research is needed, however, to determine whether win limits could be a useful component of a responsible gambling strategy.

The impact of casinos on fatal alcohol-related traffic accidents in the United States.

Casinos have been introduced throughout the U.S. to spur economic development and generate tax revenues. Yet, casinos may also be associated with a variety of social ills. One issue that has not been empirically tested in the literature is whether there is a link between casino expansion and alcohol-related fatal traffic accidents. We suspect a link may exist since casinos often serve alcohol to their patrons and, by their dispersed nature, could impact driving distances after drinking. Using the variation in the timing and location of casino openings over a 10-year period, we isolate the impact of casino introduction on alcohol-related fatal accidents. Results indicate that there is a strong link between the presence of a casino in a county and the number of alcohol-related fatal traffic accidents. However, this relationship is negatively related to the local-area (county) population. Results prove durable, as we subject them to robustness checks.

Methodological issues in the social cost of gambling studies.

The appropriate way to classify and measure the "social costs" of gambling is a very important, unresolved methodological issue that has been addressed by Collins and Lapsley (2000); Thompson, Gazel, and Rickman (1999); and Walker and Barnett (1999), among others. What should be included and excluded from social cost studies continues to be a controversial issue, as illustrated in the literature and recent conferences. This paper is an attempt to explain the "economics" conception of social costs in accessible language. By using a simple economic model and everyday examples, it shows that the economics methodology is better than the other methodologies currently available. There are four specific goals of the paper: (1) Discuss the importance of the social cost methodological debate and the state of research in the area; (2) Explain the Walker-Barnett definition of social cost in the context of a simple production possibilities frontier and indifference curve model; (3) Use simple illustrative examples to show why many of the alleged social costs should not be classified as such; and (4) Suggest a new method for analyzing the social costs and effects attributable to pathological gambling.

The Social Costs of Gambling: An Economic Perspective.

Much of the opposition to legalized gambling is based on analyses of the social costs that occur as a result of pathological gambling. It is our contention that many, if not most, authors who have contributed to this literature are either unclear or misguided in what they define as social costs. Instead of starting with a clear definition of what constitutes a social cost, these authors have adopted an ad hoc approach-using "common sense" to determine what constitutes losses to society and then attempting to quantify the impact of those activities. We believe this is not, as some suggest, simply a matter of semantics. Rather, it is a serious problem in the gambling literature. How do we differentiate between a consequence of pathological gambling that is a "social cost" and one that is not? Which of the consequences of addictive behaviors that are associated with gambling arise when gambling is legal, and which will be manifest in some form whether or not gambling is legal? In this article we explain the economic perspective on social costs. An understanding of this paradigm removes the subjectivity in the classification of pathological gambling's social costs. The paper has three major components. First, we introduce the economic notion of social costs. Using this paradigm, we differentiate between the "true" social costs related to pathological gambling, and other negative consequences that cannot legitimately be classified as social costs. Second, we evaluate a recent social cost study using the economics social cost paradigm. Third, we discuss two types of social costs that have been largely overlooked in the gambling literature. One is caused by gambling prohibition. The other occurs as a result of "rent seeking" that is related to the political process surrounding the legalization of gambling.