Empirical Economics

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 929–945 | Cite as

Network externalities in consumer spending on lottery games: evidence from Spain

Article

Abstract

We use data from two nationally representative Spanish surveys in 2005 and 2006 to investigate spending on lottery games. Estimates from Tobit and double hurdle models of participation in lottery markets and spending on lottery tickets find that frequent participation in one game is not associated with an increased or decreased probability of participating in other games, but is associated with increased spending on other games. Consumer spending on different lottery games exhibits inter-related consumption decisions. Also, the assumptions underlying the double hurdle model, but not the Tobit model, better describe consumer spending on lottery tickets in Spain.

Keywords

Double hurdle model Gambling Lottery Network externalities Consumer spending 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

D12 C21 D62 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdel-Ghany M, Sharpe DL (2001) Lottery expenditures in Canada: regional analysis of purchase, amount of purchase, and incidence. Fam Consum Sci Res J 30(1): 64–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clotfelter CT, Cook PJ (1989) Selling hope: state lotteries in America. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook PJ, Clotfelter CT (1993) The peculiar scale economies of lotto. Am Econ Rev 83(3): 634–643Google Scholar
  4. Economides N (1996) The economics of networks. Int J Ind Econ 14(2): 673–699Google Scholar
  5. Farrell L, Forrest D (2008) Measuring displacement effects across gaming products: a study of Australian gambling markets. Appl Econ 40(1): 53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farrell L, Walker I (1999) The welfare effects of lotto: evidence from the UK. J Public Econ 72(1): 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farrell L, Morgenroth E, Walker I (1999) A time series analysis of U.K. lottery sales: long and short run price elasticities.. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(4): 513–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forrest D, McHale I (2007) The relationship between a national and a multistate lotto game. J Gambl Bus Econ 1(2): 207–216Google Scholar
  9. Forrest D, Gulley OD, Simmons R (2000) Testing for rational expectations in the UK national lottery. Appl Econ 32(3): 315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forrest D, Simmons R, Chesters N (2002) Buying a dream: alternative models of demand for lotto. Econ Inq 40(3): 485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forrest D, Gulley OD, Simmons R (2004) Substitution between games in the UK national lottery. Appl Econ 37(7): 645–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forrest D, Gulley OD, Simmons R (2005) The relationship between betting and lottery play: a high-frequency time series analysis. Lancaster University Management School Working Paper No 2005/046Google Scholar
  13. Gandal N, Kende M, Rob R (2000) The dynamics of technological adoption in hardware/software systems: the case of compact disc players. RAND J Econ 31(1): 43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garcia J, Labeaga JM (2006) Alternative approaches to modelling zero expenditure: an application to Spanish demand for tobacco. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 58(1): 489–506Google Scholar
  15. Garrett TA, Sobel RS (2001) State lottery revenue: the importance of game characteristics. Public Financ Rev 32(3): 313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grote KR, Matheson VA (2006) Dueling jackpots: are competing lotto games complements or substitutes. Atl Econ J 34(1): 85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guryan J, Kearney MS (2008) Gambling at lucky stores: empirical evidence from state lottery sales. Am Econ Rev 98(1): 458–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guryan J, Kearney MS (2010) Is lottery gambling addictive. Am Econ J Econ Policy 2(3): 90–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones AM (1989) A double-hurdle model of cigarette consumption. J Appl Econ 4(1): 23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones AM (2000) Health econometrics. Handb Health Econ 1: 265–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kearney MS (2005) State lotteries and consumer behavior. J Public Econ 89(11–12): 2269–2299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin CT, Lai CH (2006) Substitute effects between lotto and big lotto in Taiwan. Appl Econ Lett 13(10): 655–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Price DI, Novak ES (2000) The income redistribution effects of Texas state lottery games. Public Financ Rev 28(1): 82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scott F, Garen J (1994) Probability of purchase, amount of purchase, and the demographic incidence of the lottery tax. J Public Econ 54(1): 121–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Walker I (1998) The economic analysis of lotteries. Econ Policy 13(27): 357–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walker I, Young J (2001) An economists guide to lottery design. Econ J 111(475): 700–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Worthington AC (2001) Implicit finance in gambling expenditures: Australian evidence on socioeconomic and demographic tax incidence. Public Financ Rev 29(4): 326–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Departamento de EconomíaUniversidad de OviedoOviedoSpain

Personalised recommendations