Determinants of the probability and timing of commercial casino legalization in the United States
- 261 Downloads
The adoption of lotteries by state governments has received significant attention in the economics literature, but the issue of casino adoption has been neglected by researchers. Casino gambling is a relatively new industry in the United States, outside Nevada and New Jersey. As of 2007, 11 states had established commercial casinos; several more states are considering legalization. We analyze the factors that determine a state’s decision to legalize commercial casinos, using data from 1985 to 2000, a period which covers the majority of states that have adopted commercial casinos. We use a tobit model to examine states’ fiscal conditions, political alignments, intrastate and interstate competitive environments, and demographic characteristics, which yields information on the probability and timing of adoptions. The results suggest a public choice explanation that casino legalization is due to state fiscal stress, to efforts to keep gambling revenues (and the concomitant gambling taxes) within the state, and to attract tourism or “export taxes.”
KeywordsCasinos Casino adoption Legalized gambling Fiscal stress Tax revenues
JEL ClassificationD72 L83 H7
- Alm, J., McKee, M., & Skidmore, M. (1993). Fiscal pressure, tax competition, and the introduction of state lotteries. National Tax Journal, 46, 463–476. Google Scholar
- American Gaming Association (2008). State of the states: the AGA survey of casino entertainment. Available online at http://www.americangaming.org. Accessed June 1, 2008.
- Barrow, C. (2007). New England casino gaming update, 2007. Dartmouth: Center for Policy Analysis, University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
- Bluestein, G. (2009). States bet on gambling. Charleston Post and Courier (26 Jan.). Google Scholar
- Borg, M., Mason, P., & Shapiro, S. (1991). The economic consequences of state lotteries. New York: Praeger. Google Scholar
- Clotfelter, C., & Cook, P. (1991). Selling hope: state lotteries in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
- Coughlin, C., Garrett, T., & Hernández-Murillo, R. (2006). The geography, economics, and politics of lottery adoption. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review (May/June), 165–180. Google Scholar
- Filer, J., Moak, D., & Uze, B. (1988). Why some states adopt lotteries and others don’t. Public Finance Quarterly, 16(3), 259–283. Google Scholar
- Gujarati, D. (2003). Basic econometrics (4 edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
- Javers, E. (2008). MGM Mirage’s hidden card. Business Week (28 Feb.). Available online at http://www.businessweek.com.
- Kennedy, P. (2003). A guide to econometrics (5 edn.). Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
- Light, S., & Rand, K. (2005). Indian gaming & tribal sovereignty: the casino compromise. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Google Scholar
- Miyazaki, A., Hansen, A., & Sprott, D. (1998). A longitudinal analysis of income-based tax regressivity of state-sponsored lotteries. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17, 161–172. Google Scholar
- National Indian Gaming Commission (2008). NIGC announces 2007 Indian gaming revenues. Press release. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.nigc.gov/ReadingRoom/PressReleases/.
- Pindyck, R., & Rubinfeld, D. (1991). Econometric models and econometric forecasts (3 edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
- Richburg, K. (2008). Governors seek remedies for shortfalls. Washington Post (13 Jan.). Google Scholar
- Rubensetin, R., & Scafidi, B. (2002). Who pays and who benefits? Examining the distributional consequences of the Georgia Lottery for Education. National Tax Journal, 55(2), 223–238. Google Scholar
- von Herrmann, D. (2002). The big gamble: the politics of lottery and casino expansion. Westport: Praeger. Google Scholar
- Walker, D. (2007). The economics of casino gambling. New York: Springer. Google Scholar