Content uploaded by Charles Livingstone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charles Livingstone on Jun 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gambling Research Volume 21, No 2, pp.3-6 November 2009
COMMENTARY
Gambling research: Politics, magma and the public interest
CHARLES LIVINGSTONE
Department of Health Social Science, Monash University, Cauleld, VIC, Australia 3145.
Email: charles.livingstone@med.monash.edu.au
Gambling studies as a eld of social research (as opposed to that corpus of work concerned with
the pathology of the individual problem gambler) is, as contributors to the Gambling Research
May 2009 special edition have made clear, a eld strewn with obstacles. These include limited
independent funding opportunities, political controversy, the operation of vested interests, and a
fragmented research community. To add to this, it is as often as not perceived by academic peers
as of limited scholarly interest.
Nonetheless, it is a eld of inquiry which has the potential to strongly promote public health
and wellbeing. As any observer of the study of substance (ab)use including tobacco control would
attest, much progress in human wellbeing has been associated with social inquiry, in some cases
rather more than has been achieved by focusing on the aberrant behaviour of those with the
“addiction”. In a similar way, the real potential for gambling studies as a eld of very productive
research activity arises not so much from the direct consequences of researching “problem
gambling” – the locus of so much research to date – but from the broader need to understand
the dynamics of gambling as an economic, and clearly socially meaningful activity in its rapidly
proliferating contemporary forms. In this light, gambling research as a specic area of study also
has the potential to illuminate post-material consumption in general.
Regardless of all this potential, I suggest that the study of gambling as a eld of social research
is confronted by very real and pressing problems.
The rst of these is the operation of vested interest. The gambling industry, and in Australia
the state and territory governments which regulate and tax it, derive substantial revenues from
the maintenance of the present situation, and it’s hardly surprising that they seek to maintain the
status quo for as long as possible. Industry appears to be quite happy to devote whatever resources
are available to achieve this outcome. State governments, for their part, are more torn. They must
appear to be concerned about the wellbeing of the public (and no doubt many in government
are genuinely so concerned) but the vertical scal imbalance in Australian government revenues
makes the continuation of existing revenue streams a pressing priority. Gambling industry
spokespeople made it clear to a recent Parliamentary inquiry that the industry had been keen
to present their case to the Australian Labour Party government after 2007, spooked perhaps
by incoming Prime Minister Rudd’s remarks about his dislike of “the pokies” (e.g., Costello,
2008; Gibson, 2008) and indeed employ government relations consultants (such as Mr Gibson)
apparently to do so. Industry groups (and one might include government in this category) also
have vast resources available to fund research – often commercially oriented, sometimes for what
amount to propaganda purposes, and commonly to develop generally downstream “solutions”
or responses to gambling’s problems. It is a matter of serious concern that most of the established
names in gambling research have derived research funds from such sources in the past, as Grifths
4 Livingstone
(2009) points out.1 This is far from an ideal situation, and parallels that in some other areas of
public health concern, such as tobacco, alcohol, and the pharmaceutical industry. Adams is right
to point out the need to reduce reliance on the proceeds of gambling – on the consumption of
gambling prots, as he puts it (Adams 2009). One way to address this issue is for relevant journal
editors to adopt a policy of full disclosure by authors of funding sources, and any constraints
on research direction, editorial control, copyright and data access, and ownership. Another
complementary solution is to establish a central web-based directory of potential conicts, housed
on an independently controlled server. But ultimately, this issue is an issue of research culture as
much as it is of integrity and reputation. Adams (2009) is right – we need culture change in the
consumption of gambling research funding, just as we do in the consumption of alcohol and other
drugs, and indeed in gambling itself. Such change has largely been achieved in tobacco research,
and to a certain extent in relation to research involving pharmaceutical substances. It remains a
major challenge in alcohol and, I believe, gambling research elds.
A related issue is the difculty of obtaining access to data for research purposes (Morrison,
2009). As recently as August 31, 2009 this issue was raised in a submission to the Productivity
Commission’s current inquiry (Miller, 2009). Government and industry control enormous data sets
including loyalty and electronic gaming machine (EGM) level data. Few of these see the light of
day for independent research purposes, or otherwise. Detailed data sets are often made available
with caveats attached. Queensland and South Australia (for example) publish regional EGM data,
which can be productively utilised for research, but venue level data are not available. In Victoria,
the situation is a little different. Local EGM venue data are now published (Department of Justice
Victoria, 2009; Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation, 2009), allowing at least some
scrutiny and examination of expenditure patterns.2 Why are such data important? The gambling
industry made much of its capacity to utilise data for purposes of gambling intensication when
attempting to achieve continuation of the Victorian duopoly (Tattersall’s, 2006). Those with an
interest in promoting public health and wellbeing would argue (as I and others did – see the
Australian Institute for Primary Care, 2006) that the same data would be very helpful for identifying
potentially harmful products and designing effective up- or mid-stream interventions.
This lack of publicly available data in most jurisdictions is a serious problem for independent
gambling research, particularly that focused on the promotion of public wellbeing. This includes
technical information about game sets and game maths for EGMs, and platform level data for
assessment of propensity for harm (among other things). In New South Wales, although some
data are theoretically available, access costs $550 per year ($1,100 for the current year), and
data describing specic venues are not released (New South Wales Ofce of Liquor Gaming and
Racing, 2009). This is completely unsatisfactory from a public interest perspective, let alone that
of public health. It is, of course, helpful from the perspective of those who wish to slow down the
pace of change – whether they perceive their opposition as the concerned groups who oppose
gambling as exploitation of the vulnerable, or from the perspective of protecting monopoly or
oligopoly positions. In any event, it is a helpful tactic in maintaining “the discourse of business
1 Whether I am an established researcher or not is for others to decide. But I have indeed received research funds
from two Australian state government agencies, the ultimate source of which was gambling revenues. I suspect that
few researchers have not received some funding from such sources, although I would contend that there are varying
degrees of conict.
2 It is noteworthy that Victorian data of this nature were released to coincide with the Victorian government’s plans to
de-duopolise the EGM industry, so it seems the release was less altruistic than intended to support the commercial
process of bidding for individual EGM licenses, due to occur in 2010.
Gambling Research: Politics, magma and the public interest 5
as usual”, a term Woolley and I have utilised to refer to the currently dominant (or orthodox)
discourse of gambling regulation and practice (Livingstone & Woolley, 2007).
I do not suggest that it is easy to strike a balance between public interest, public health,
private prot, and government nance. Gambling causes harm, makes massive prots, and keeps
political coffers at least partly lled. These tensions are inescapable.
The challenge to gambling research, I believe, is to become much better at informing a properly
very public debate. Attempts to keep the issue out of sight have repeatedly failed. It is not tenable
to pretend that we can discover some objective truth in this situation, which will be accepted by
all players, and thus resolve the problems that are only too apparent. McDonald (2009) is quite
right – gambling is a very political issue, in the proper sense of the word (although I respectfully
disagree that it is an issue which struggles to be discerned).
What I do suggest is that gambling as social research is strongly in need of a transformation
of clarity in focus and intent. Those who undertake research of a socially oriented nature into
gambling’s many intriguing and fascinating contours may already accept that gambling research
occupies a magmatic space where politics, public interest, public health, and commercial interests
concatenate. Reith (2002) in the UK and Schull (2005) in the US provide excellent examples of
this understanding. The research questions we address ourselves to, the methodologies we adopt,
and the solutions and data we generate will all reect the alignments we adopt, the funding we
receive, and the interests we serve. This is why issues of research funding, conict of interest,
data availability, and research intent cannot be ignored. Researchers are not neutral observers in
this magmatic environment. To some extent we shape it, and the role we play in doing so needs
to be made clear. The responsibility for putting our own house in order rests with the research
community, and we should take it up as a matter of some urgency.
References
Adams, P. (2009). Redening the gambling problem: The production and consumption of gambling prots.
Gambling Research, 21(1), 51–54.
Australian Institute for Primary Care, (2006). The changing electronic gaming machine (EGM) industry and
technology. Gambling Research Panel Department of Justice Melbourne. Available at: http://www.
justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/resources/file/eb22794af92c87c/Changing_
EGM_industry_and_technology_full.pdf
Costello, D. (2008). Evidence to Australian Senate Community Affairs Committee 12 Sep 2008. Available at
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11204.pdf
Department of Justice Victoria, (2009). Victorian Gaming Expenditure data released 6 March
2009. Available at http://www.gamblinglicences.vic.gov.au/media/docs/Venue_Level_
Data_2005_06_2006_07_2007_08-1d4d47c0-5332-4a98-b26a-d93f15969493-0.XLS
Gibson, G. (2008). Evidence to Australian Senate Community Affairs Committee 12 Sep 2008. Available at
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11204.pdf
Grifths, M. (2009). Gambling research and the search for a sustainable funding infrastructure. Gambling
Research, 21(1), 28–32.
Livingstone, C., & Woolley, R. (2007). Risky business: A few provocations on the regulation of electronic
gaming machines. International Gambling Studies, 7(3), 362–376.
McDonald, J. (2009). The biggest challenge? Recognition of gambling as a public issue. Gambling Research,
21(1), 47–50.
Miller, R. (2009). Submission No. 260 to Productivity Commission Inquiry into Gambling dated 31 August
2009. Available at: http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_le/0004/91084/sub260.pdf
6 Livingstone
Morrison, P. (2009). A new national framework for Australian gambling research: A discussion paper on the
potential challenges and processes involved. Gambling Research, 21(1), 8–24.
New South Wales Ofce of Liquor Gaming and Racing, (2009). Statistics/data order form available at: http://
www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/gaming_statistics.pdf
Reith, G. (2002). The age of chance. London: Routledge.
Schull, N. (2005). Digital gambling: The coincidence of desire and design. Annals of the American Academy,
597, 65–81.
Tattersall’s Ltd, (2006). The Responsible Vision Part 1, Submission to Review of Gaming Machine, Wagering
and Keno Licences, http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJþInternet/resources/le/
eb940843c69937f/Tattersalls_Part1.pdf
Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation, (2009). Expenditure by venue 2008/09. Available at http://
www.vcgr.vic.gov.au/CA256F800017E8D4/Statistics/6C1CA3CBCD23FDA3CA2575FC002083BA?
Open
Charles Livingstone (Ph.D. University of Melbourne) is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of
Health Social Science, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University.