Journal of Economics and Finance

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 43–49 | Cite as

The rise (or fall) of lottery adoption within the logic of collective action: Some empirical evidence

  • Franklin G. Mixon
  • Steven B. Caudill
  • Jon M. Ford
  • Ter Chao Peng
Article

Abstract

This paper builds upon previous work on the economics of lottery adoption by incorporating the collective action logic developed in an important series of works by Mancur Olson. Public choice research points out that legislators are rational maximizers, and act within a costbenefit framework in attempting to implement means of budget finance. Discrete-time hazard models presented suggest that lottery adoption is more likely to occur in older states where rent seeking groups are older and more organized, and can more effectively engage in efforts for collective action (and benefits). By implementing lotteries as taxshifting mechanisms, the role of, government and the direction of social evolution are also altered.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brinner, R.E. and C.T. Clotfelter. (1975) “An Economic Appraisal of State Lotteries,”National Tax Journal 32: 543–548.Google Scholar
  2. Caudill, S.B., J.M. Ford, F.G. Mixon, Jr. and T.C. Peng. (1995) “A Discrete-Time Hazard Model of Lottery Adoption,”Applied Economics 27: 555–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Filer, J.E., D.L. Moak, and B. Uze. (1988) “Why Some States Adopt Lotteries and Others Don’t,”Public Finance Quarterly 16: 259–283.Google Scholar
  4. Jackson, J.D., D.S. Saurman, and W.F. Shughart, II. (1994) “Instant Winners: Legal Change and Diffusion of State Lotteries,”Public Choice 80: 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lipford, Jody and Bruce Yandle. (1990) “Exploring Dominant State Governments,”Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 146: 561–575.Google Scholar
  6. Livernois, J.R.. (1987) “The Redistributive effects of Lotteries: Evidence from Canada,”Public Finance Quarterly 15: 339–351.Google Scholar
  7. Martin, R. and B. Yandle. (1990) “State Lotteries as Duopoly Transfer Mechanisms,”Public Choice 64: 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Olson, M. (1988) “The Productivity Slowdown, the Oil Shocks, and the Real Cycle,”Journal of Economic Perspectives 2: 43–69.Google Scholar
  9. — (1983) “The South will Fall Again: The South as Leader and Laggard in Economic Growth,”Southern Economic Journal 49:917–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. — (1982)The Rise and Decline of Nations, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. — (1965)The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Wohlenberg, E.H. (1992) “Recent U.S. Gambling Legalization: A Case of State Lotteries,”The Social Science Journal 29: 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franklin G. Mixon
    • 1
  • Steven B. Caudill
    • 2
  • Jon M. Ford
    • 3
  • Ter Chao Peng
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Economics and International BusinessUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburg
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsAuburn UniversityAuburn
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlington
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsFeng Chia UniversityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations