Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 343–373 | Cite as

The implementation and effects of Great Britain's National Lottery

  • David Miers
Articles

Abstract

This article reviews the implementation of the British National Lottery since the first draw took place in November 1994. It seeks to analyse the experience to date against the background of the concerns expressed prior to its introduction and of the regulatory objectives set by the framework legislation. It also considers the impact that the Lottery is having upon the formulation and implementation of regulatory policy affecting other gambling media. The six sections following the introduction deal in turn with the Lottery's income, permitted games, the participants, the good causes benefiting from its proceeds, its impact on other gambling media, and its place within British government policy concerning the regulation of commercial gambling.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abt, V. & McGurrin, M. (1992). Commercial gambling and values in American society: the social construction of risk.Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 413–420.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, R. & Phillips, M. (1995). Poor losing most on the Lottery, new figures show.The Observer 29 October 1995. London.Google Scholar
  3. Clotfelter, C. & Cook, P. (1989).Selling Hope: State Lotteries in America. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Customs & Excise (1995).Annual Report of the Department of Customs and Excise year ending 31 March 1995. London: H.M.S.O. Cm 2980.Google Scholar
  5. DeBoer, L. (1990). Jackpot size and Lotto sales: Evidence from Ohio 1986–87.Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 345–354.Google Scholar
  6. Department of National Heritage (1993). Directions to the Director General of the National Lottery under section 11 of the National Lottery etc Act 1993 (16 December 1993).Google Scholar
  7. Douglas, A. (1995).British Charitable Gambling. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, S. (1993). Gambling and pathological gambling in adolescents.Journal of Gambling Studies, 9, 277–387.Google Scholar
  9. FitzHerbert, L. (1995).Winners and Losers: the Impact of the National Lottery. A report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, July 1995.Google Scholar
  10. Gaming Board (1989).Report of the Gaming Board for Great Britain 1988/89. London; H.M.S.O. HC 461.Google Scholar
  11. Gaming Board (1994).Report of the Gaming Board for Great Britain 1993/94. London; H.M.S.O. HC 465.Google Scholar
  12. Gaming Board (1995).Report of the Gaming Board for Great Britain 1994/95. London; H.M.S.O. HC 587.Google Scholar
  13. Hand, I. (1992). Gambling in Europe.Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 3–9.Google Scholar
  14. Home Office (1992).A National Lottery Rating Money for Good Causes. London; H.M.S.O. Cm.1861.Google Scholar
  15. Home Office (1996).Casinos and Bingo Clubs: A Consultation Paper. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  16. House of Commons (1808).Second Report on Lotteries. London; HC 323.Google Scholar
  17. House of Commons (1993). Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 217.Google Scholar
  18. House of Commons (1995). Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 264.Google Scholar
  19. House of Lords (1993). Official Report, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 546.Google Scholar
  20. Hraba J., Mok, W. & Huff, D. (1990). Lottery play and problem gambling.Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 355–377.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, J. (1995).Home Office Policy on Gambling. Society for the Study of Gambling Newsletter No. 26 (July 1995) 3–6. London.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, H. (1990a). Lottery mania: an Editor's view.Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 289–296.Google Scholar
  23. Kaplan, H. (1990b). The effect of state lotteries on the pari mutuel industry.Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 331–344.Google Scholar
  24. Kent-Lemon, N. (1995). Deregulation of the casino industry. Society for the Study of Gambling Newsletter No. 26 (July 1995) 12–16. London.Google Scholar
  25. LeGrand, J. (1995). The Observer, 29 October 1995.Google Scholar
  26. Livernois, J. (1987). The redistributive effects of lotteries: evidence from Canada.Public Finance Quarterly, 15, 339–351.Google Scholar
  27. Lorenz, V. (1990). State lotteries and compulsive gambling.Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 383–396.Google Scholar
  28. McGowan, R. (1994).State Lotteries and Legalized Gambling. London: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  29. Miers, D. (1984). The regulation of commercial gaming.Journal of Law and Society, 11, 33–66.Google Scholar
  30. Miers, D. (1996a). Objectives and systems in the regulation of commercial gambling. InGambling Cultures (ed J. McMillen) Routledge, in press.Google Scholar
  31. Miers, D. (1996b). Regulating Great Britain's National Lottery. InPublic Policies, the Social Sciences and Gambling (eds W Eadington and J Cornelius), University of Nevada, in press.Google Scholar
  32. Mikesell, J. (1990). Lotteries in the state fiscal system.Journal of Gambling Studies, 6, 313–330.Google Scholar
  33. Mobilia, P. (1992). A little bit more evidence of lottery regressivity: the Kansas state lottery.Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 361–369.Google Scholar
  34. National Heritage Committee (1993a).Third report: National Lottery etc Bill; House of Commons session 1992–93. London; H.M.S.O. HC. 389.Google Scholar
  35. National Heritage Committee (1993b).National Lottery etc Bill; Minutes of Evidence. House of Commons session 1992–93. London; H.M.S.O. HC. 389-i.Google Scholar
  36. National Heritage Committee (1995).The National Lottery. House of Commons, HC 131 (26 January 1995).Google Scholar
  37. National Lottery Regulations (1994). SI 1994 No. 189.Google Scholar
  38. OFLOT (1993).Invitation to Apply. London.Google Scholar
  39. OFLOT (1994a).Licence to run the National Lottery under section 5 of the National Lottery etc Act 1993. 29 July 1994.Google Scholar
  40. OFLOT (1994b).Licence under section 6 of the National Lottery etc Art 1993. (8 November 1994).Google Scholar
  41. OFLOT (1994c).Director General of the National Lottery, Annual Report 1993–94. London: H.M.S.O. HC 672.Google Scholar
  42. OFLOT (1994d). The National Lottery: Advertising Code of Practice.Google Scholar
  43. OFLOT (1994e). The National Lottery: the Player Code of Practice.Google Scholar
  44. OFLOT (1995a).The Anonymity Review. May 1995.Google Scholar
  45. OFLOT (1995b).Director General of the National Lottery, Annual Report 1994–95. London: H.M.S.O. HC 755.Google Scholar
  46. OFLOT (1996).Social Research Programme. February 1996.Google Scholar
  47. Royal Commission (1978).Report of the Royal Commission on Gambling (chm Lord Rothschild). London; H.M.S.O. Cmnd 7200.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, G. (1992). Sucker bet or sure thing: a critical analysis of sports lotteries.Journal of Gambling Studies, 8, 331–349.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, W. & Dombrink, J. (1989). A politically acceptable model of casino gaming for American jurisdictions. InGambling in Canada (eds. C. Campbell and J. Lowman) 337–370. British Columbia; School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  50. Wilkinson, H. (1995). Running a lottery syndicate.New Law Journal, 145, 217–218 (17 February 1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Miers
    • 1
  1. 1.Cardiff UniversityUK
  2. 2.Cardiff Law SchoolCPLSCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations