Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 110, Issue 3, pp 259–268 | Cite as

Paternalism and the Pokies: Unjustified State Interference or Justifiable Intervention?

  • Elizabeth Prior Jonson
  • Margaret Lindorff
  • Linda McGuire


The Australian Productivity Commission and a Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform have recommended implementation of a mandatory pre-commitment system for electronic gambling. Organizations associated with the gambling industry have protested that such interventions reduce individual rights, and will cause a reduction in revenue which will cost jobs and reduce gaming venue support for local communities. This article is not concerned with the design details or the evidence base of the proposed scheme, but rather with the fundamental criticism that a mandatory pre-commitment policy is an unacceptable interference with the liberty of the individual, and of organizations. It is argued that the concept of paternalism is a useful lens with which to study the interactions between business and society on this issue. It is contended that the benefits of a pre-commitment system to problem gamblers and society are socially and economically significant, and the cost to recreational gamblers, particularly the cost in terms of interference with the liberty of the individual, is minimal. Pre-commitment also requires gambling businesses to act in a more socially responsible manner. It is concluded that the proposed legislation constitutes a paternalistic intervention by government on the interaction between business and society, and that this is justified.


Gambling Paternalism Regulation State intervention Government policy Corporate social responsibility 


  1. Banks, G. (2011). Evidence and social policy: The case of gambling. Presentation to South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, Corporate Seminar, 30 March. Accessed 29 May 2011.
  2. Blaszcynski, A., & Gainsbury, S. (2011). Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform Inquiry into Pre-commitment Scheme. Accessed 12 December 2011.
  3. Boatright, J. R. (2009). Rent seeking in a market with morality: Solving a puzzle about corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 541–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brockway, G. (1993). Limited paternalism and the salesperson: A reconsideration. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cosans, C. (2008). Does Milton Friedman support a vigorous business ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 391–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dworkin, G. (1971). Paternalism. In R. A. Wasserstrom (Ed.), Morality and the law (pp. 107–126). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  7. Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the sirens. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Feinberg, J. (1971). Legal paternalism. In Rights, Justice and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Francis, A. (2011). Wilkie Sets Deadline for Pokies Reform Plan, 29 March. ABC Online. Accessed 29 May 2011.
  10. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 33, 122–125.Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gillard, J., & Wilkie, A. (2010). Agreement, 2 September. Accessed 29 August 2011.
  13. Hart, H. L. A. (1963). Law, liberty and morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hing, N. (2001). Changing the odds: A study of corporate social principles and practices in addressing problem gambling. Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hing, N., & Mackellar, J. (2004). Challenges in responsible provision of gambling: Questions of efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency. UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal, 8, 43–58.Google Scholar
  16. Hobson, P. (1984). Another look at paternalism. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 1, 293–304.Google Scholar
  17. Homer. (2001). The Odyssey (S. H. Butcher & A. Lang, Vol. XXII, Trans.) New York: The Harvard Classics, P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.Google Scholar
  18. Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform. (2011). First report: The design and implementation of a mandatory pre-commitment system for electronic gaming machines, 6 May 2011, Parliament of Australia, Canberra. Accessed 29 May 2011.
  19. Kleinig, J. (1983). Paternalism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leonard, T., Goldfarb, R., & Suranovic, S. (2000). New on paternalism and public policy. Economics and Philosophy, 16, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mele, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility theories. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 47–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mill, J. S. [1964(1859, 1861, 1863)]. Utilitarianism, liberty, representative government. London: Everyman.Google Scholar
  23. Mond, J., Davidson, T., & McAllister, I. (2011). Public opinion poll on gambling: ANU poll, July, Australian National Institute for Public Policy and ANU College of Arts and Sciences. Accessed 22 August 2011.
  24. New, B. (1999). Paternalism and public policy. Economics and Philosophy, 15, 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newell, P. (2011). National Press Club Address, 23 March. Accessed 2 June 2011.
  26. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2010). Gambling motivations, money-limiting strategies, and precommitment preferences of problem versus non-problem gamblers. Journal of Gambling Studies, 26, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s Gambling Industries Inquiry Report, Canberra. Accessed 6 September 2011.
  28. Productivity Commission. (2010). Gambling, Productivity Committee Enquiry Report, vol. 1, No. 50, Canberra. Accessed 29 August 2011.
  29. Slutske, W. S. (2006). Natural recovery and treatment-seeking in pathological gambling: Results of two U.S. National Surveys. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slutske, W. S., Zhu, G., Meier, M. H., & Martin, N. G. (2011). Disordered gambling as defined by the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders and the south oaks gambling screen: Evidence for a common etiologic structure. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 130, 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, A. [1976(1776)]. In R.H. Campbell & A.S. Skinner (Eds.), The Wealth of Nations (IV ii 9). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Suurvali, H., Hodgins, D. C., Toneatto, T., & Cunningham, J. (2008). Treatment seeking among Ontario problem gamblers: Results of a population survey. Psychiatric Services, 59, 1343–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ten, C. L. (1980). Mill on liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Thomas, M., & Buckmaster, L. (2010). Paternalism in social policyWhen is it justifiable? Parliamentary Library Research Paper no. 8, 2010-11, 15 December, (Parliament of Australia). Accessed 28 August 2011.
  35. Watts, N. (2009). Merrylands sporting and bowling submission to the Productivity Commisssion. Accessed 5 September 2009.
  36. Weinstock, J., Burton, S., Rash, C. J., Moran, S., Biller, W., Krudelbach, N., et al. (2011). Predictors of engaging in problem gambling treatment: Data from the West Virginia problem gamblers help network. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 372–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Prior Jonson
    • 1
  • Margaret Lindorff
    • 1
  • Linda McGuire
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations