Rehabilitating Reno: a Commentary on Hancock and Smith
- 204 Downloads
Hancock and Smith critique the “Reno model” on several accounts. Yet, despite their robust critical evaluation, they are surprisingly ambivalent about its potential for future use, suggesting that the model may be usefully redeemed by improving its provisions for consumer protection. In this commentary, we argue that Hancock and Smith’s proposed improvements to the Reno model do not go far enough. To that end, we aim to rehabilitate the Reno model by radically transforming its assumptions into a set of eight axioms on which effective consumer protection measures might be based. This provisional framework for the social management of gambling may support the policy outcomes advocated by Hancock and Smith. If regulators and researchers are serious about effective gambling harm minimisation, then our rehabilitated Reno model might offer a new and necessary set of foundational principles for research and practice.
KeywordsGambling regulation Public health Reno model Responsible gambling Gambling industry Consumer protection
The authors are grateful to Holly Sansone for her helpful comments on an early draft of this manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Martin Young has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Gambling Research Australia, and several Australian state government departments, most notably the Community Benefit Fund of the Northern Territory Government.
Francis Markham has received funding from, or been employed on projects that received funding from, the Australian Research Council, the Community Benefit Fund of the Northern Territory, and the Australian Capital Territory Gambling and Racing Commission. His travel expenses to speak at an international conference have been paid by the Alberta Gambling Research Institute, an organisation funded by the provincial government of Alberta. He is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia.
Neither author has received funding from the gambling, tobacco, or alcohol industries nor are there any constraints on the publication of this manuscript.
- Browne, M., Langham, E., Rawat, V., Greer, N., Li, E., Rose, J., & Best, T. (2016). Assessing gambling-related harm in Victoria: a public health perspective. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.Google Scholar
- Dickerson, M. (2003). Exploring the limits of ‘responsible gambling’: harm minimisation or consumer protection? Gambling Research, 15(1), 29–44.Google Scholar
- Hancock, L., & Smith, G. (2017). Critiquing the Reno model I-IV international influence on regulators and governments (2004–2015)—the distorted reality of “responsible gambling”. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–26. doi: 10.1007/s11469-017-9746-y.
- Livingston, C., Rintoul, A., & Francis, L. (2014). What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues? Evidence Base, 2, 1–24.Google Scholar
- Markham, F., & Young, M. (2017). Commentary on van der Maas et al.: Going ‘where the action is’. Addiction. doi: 10.1111/add.13958.
- Schüll, N. D. (2012). Addiction by design: machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar