What do we know about gambling in New Zealand?

• Author: Bunkle, Phillida

Abstract

A public health approach to gambling policy depends upon careful socioeconomic analysis to guide resource allocation to education, information provision and treatment. This paper argues that existing research does not provide the required factual basis for such an approach, yielding conclusions that are either inconclusive or inconsistent in crucial areas, because it tends to be aimed at exploring pathology not social processes. We conclude that a better research agenda must be based on studies that explore gambling in its social and economic context.

INTRODUCTION

The Gambling Act, which was passed into law in September 2003, was a direct output of the Gaming Review. The Act is intended to incorporate a "public health approach" to gambling policy (Korn and Shaffer 1999, Ministry of Health 2002). Such a policy approach depends, however, upon careful socio-economic analysis to guide the allocation of resources to education, information provision or treatment. Without a firm factual basis, the public health approach is a warmed-over version of the status quo.

As a step towards developing such an approach this paper questions whether existing research provides the required factual basis. We find that it does not and in fact yields conclusions that are either inconclusive or inconsistent in crucial areas. The main reason for this shortcoming is that existing research is aimed at exploring pathology not social processes. Moreover, even on its own terms, it is seriously flawed.

We conclude that a different research agenda must be followed if the public health approach to gambling policy is to improve policy outcomes. That agenda must be based on studies that explore gambling in its social and economic context.

THE PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH

Although the Gambling Act 2003 does not define "public health approach", the approach has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst practitioners and policy makers for some time (Bunkle 2000). It is based on the realisation that unless treatment regimes take account of the social dynamics of gambling, they are unlikely to be successful. Worse, pathology-based treatment providers are likely to actively deny the existence of wider social and economic problems as they compete for scarce resources with other investigators. This may lead to the harmful socio-economic effects of gambling being ignored or untreated.

The public health approach focuses on populations, not individuals, and seeks to base response on socio-economic factors and to encompass mental health issues. It is so named because it seeks to place gambling in a framework that is safe for individuals and not disruptive to society at large. A public health approach to gambling is one that accounts for, and addresses, the costs and benefits of gambling accruing to both individuals and communities. It aims to develop strategies that minimise the negative impacts of gambling while nurturing any possible benefits.

A public health approach to gambling policy, therefore, seeks to promote healthy and responsible gambling behaviours among all members of society and does not aim to single out those addicted to gambling. Healthy gambling involves making informed choices and can enhance the wellbeing of gamblers and the community. The public health approach is characterised by being holistic, widely available, based on socioeconomic research, controlled by the community and provided through community-based institutions (Bunkle and Lepper 2002). Therefore, for-profit casinos (both virtual and physical) and unlimited access to pokies are inconsistent with a public health approach to gambling.

THE NATURE OF GAMBLING

Information

There are three main sources of information on gambling in New Zealand. First, there are administrative collections in which data are collected in processes ancillary to taxing, licensing or treatment. Second, there are data produced through prevalence surveys or surveys of attitudes towards, or participation in, gambling. Third, there are data arising out of general statistical systems, which include input-output studies conducted for Casino Control Authority hearings.

The most developed sources lie in the first and second categories. Here the Department of Internal Affairs has been particularly active, having commissioned two large prevalence studies and regular attitudinal surveys. It has also published data from treatment providers, numbers of gambling machines and gambling expenditures. However, so far there is little data available on the flows of funds through, employment in, or value added by, the gambling industry--let alone any social impacts that may be associated with it.

It is usually assumed that for most people gambling is a benign activity, but for a small minority it has every appearance of mental illness (Abbott and Volberg 1991, 1999, Easton 2002). This pathological perspective means that many of the wider issues surrounding gambling are missing from view. It also means that the data collected are not necessarily consistent with social reality. These points are illustrated by interrogating the available data to see if they can yield reliable information about the nature of gambling. (2)

How Much Gambling?

Official figures show a very rapid rise in the supply of gambling products, including casinos, unlimited-stake gambling machines in casinos and a rapid increase in non-casino machines with a stake limit of $2.50 per play, lottery products, scratchies and sports betting, particularly since 1990. In the space of 10 years after 1993, six casinos opened serving a population of just over four million. In December 2003 there were more than 22,000 non-casino gambling machines, (3) roughly one for every 180 women, men and children in the country. The increased numbers and heavy concentration of gambling opportunities make New Zealand a useful laboratory for understanding the dynamics of gambling participation.

Loss, which we define as net expenditure on stakes minus prizes paid, is the most socially relevant figure. Official figures show that New Zealanders lost $1.87 billion gambling over the 2002/03 financial year (4) equivalent to 1% to 1.3% of GDP. This makes gambling a very significant factor in the economy. However, Statistics New Zealand estimates neither the value added by the gambling industry nor employment in it. Moreover, there are no official measures of the flows of funds through the gambling industry, effects on regional economies, or non-financial impacts.

Official data identify the Territorial Local Authorities in which machines are located, but not where and in what social context those machines are individually sited. (5) The Mayor of Manukau City commissioned a detailed examination of where the machines in his city are operated. It shows a clear concentration of machines in areas of low socioeconomic status and relative deprivation. (6) This research was repeated for all New Zealand by Wheeler who found, on the basis of 2003 machine data and 2001 Census data, that 53% of machines were to be found in the most deprived 30% of communities (Wheeler 2003).

Who Gambles?

According to Abbott and Volberg (2000), the proportion of adults who are regular gamblers decreased from 48% in 1991 (Abbott and Volberg 1991) (7) to only about 40.8% in 1999 (Abbott and Volberg 2000:97). (8)

This result is generally confirmed by Amey (2001). (9) Amey found that in 2000 the overall rate of weekly gambling was lower than in 1995 in all gambling modes except casinos, where a marginal increase was recorded and in gaming machines where there was no change (2001:19 Table 2.5).

Gender Ratio

Abbott and Volberg's studies show major changes in the gender composition of gamblers. By re-analysing their data it can be shown that in 1991 they found approximately (10) 699,100 men and 349,550 women who were regular gamblers (i.e. those who gamble at least weekly). In 1999 they found only 566,153 men, but 538,875 women gambled in some form at least weekly (Abbott and Volberg 2000:97 Table 9a). Thus, between 1991 and 1999 the number of regular women gamblers rose at an average rate of 5.1% a year, while the number for men fell on average by 2.2% per annum. (11) In other words, in 1991, roughly 1.86 men to every women gambled regularly, but in 1999 it was 1.05 men to every woman. The figures show that the gender patterns had converged to the point where women's activity was almost the same as men's in 1999.

In Amey's data, presented in Table 1, which are based on participation in the past year, there is evidence of a large reduction in participation by men. However, Amey found that, Lotto apart, the rate of participation by women also decreased. Compared with 1990, more women but fewer men participated in playing Lotto in 2000. Participation by men and women in all other forms of gambling that were in existence in 1990 showed a decrease. Nevertheless, in the previous five years there was a marked increase in participation in casinos.

At the start of the 1990s gambling was largely a male preserve but by the end of the decade women had almost caught up. All data show that, compared with the early 1990s, fewer men (both proportionately and absolutely) are gambling. However, it is not clear whether the changes in the gender ratios are due to greater participation by women or because the rate of participation by women has fallen more slowly than that of men. (12) Even less clear are the socio-economic factors behind this change.

Who Doesn't Gamble?

Abbot and Volberg showed that overall during the 1990s, the numbers of men and women who did not gamble rose. In 1991, 11% of all adults either had never gambled or did not bet in the last six months (Abbott and Volberg 2000:101). By 1999, this figure had risen to 13.8% (see Table 2). Amey also reports an overall rise in the proportion of non-gamblers from 10% to 13% (2001:12 Table 2.2).

The question of whether or not abstinence from gambling is...