Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
School of Population Health University of Auckland Gambling as an Extractive Industry & the Moral Jeopardy it Generates Peter J. Adams, 2008 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Expansion of Commercial Gambling • Major societal change • Impacts socially & economically • Also impacts on political ecology • Links with expansion globally Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Auckland Wellington Christchurch Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Gambling Expenditure in NZ Source: Department of Internal Affairs 700 600 Millions NZ$ 500 400 300 200 100 0 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 (Excluding bingo & raffles) Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Gambling Expenditure in NZ Source: Department of Internal Affairs 1800 1993 2002 1600 Millions NZ$ 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 (Excluding bingo & raffles) Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 20 01 19 99 19 97 19 95 19 93 19 91 19 89 19 87 19 85 19 83 19 81 19 79 0 Gambling Expenditure in NZ Source: Department of Internal Affairs 1000 Track Lotteries Machines (non-casino) Casinos 900 800 Millions $NZ 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 (Excluding bingo & raffles) Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 20 03 20 01 19 99 19 97 19 95 19 93 19 91 19 89 19 87 19 85 19 83 19 81 19 79 0 Gambling Expenditure in NZ Source: Department of Internal Affairs Millions NZ$ NORMALISATION 2000 LIBERALISATION 1500 1000 REGULATION 500 INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PUBLIC HEALTH POLITICAL ECOLOGY (Excluding housie & raffles) Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 20 07 20 05 20 03 20 01 19 99 19 97 19 95 19 93 19 91 19 89 19 87 19 85 19 83 19 81 19 79 0 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Ecological Perspective… • Gambling as an extractive industry • No substantial product • Extraction within current systems • Those systems in turn are affected Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Drivers for Native Logging • Governments interested in profits from large scale extraction • Multinational ability to maximize profit potential • Entrepreneurs quick to recognize profit potential • Rapid expansion relies on absence of popular opposition 20 07 20 05 20 03 20 01 19 99 19 97 19 95 19 93 19 91 19 89 19 87 19 85 19 83 19 81 19 79 Millions NZ$ 2000 1500 1000 500 0 With Rapid Expansion of Extractive Industries comes… Degradation of natural ecology Degradation of socio-political ecology Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Gambling Expenditure in NZ Source: Department of Internal Affairs NORMALISATION Millions NZ$ 2000 LIBERALISATION Expenditure 1500 WORRY 1000 Profit Benefits REGULATION 500 Taxes (Excluding bingo & raffles) Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 20 07 20 05 20 03 20 01 19 99 19 97 19 95 19 93 19 91 19 89 19 87 19 85 19 83 19 81 19 79 0 Money Builds Relationships • Money exchange forges ongoing connections • Establishes expectations and obligations • Reinforced by multiple exchanges • Links cut across other relationships Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 What are the long term prospects for these profitdriven relationships? Where are they leading? What are the risks? Can they be reversed? Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Moral & ethical dilemmas generated by receiving gambling funds Environments promoting high industry connectedness Conflicted relationships very likely Multiple traps for the naïve, greedy & fearful Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Risks in Accepting Profits 1. Ethical risks 2. Reputational risks 3. Governance risks 4. Relationship risks Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 1. Ethical Risks • Trying to do good from sources that do harm • Majority of gambling funds from low income families & problem gamblers • Credentialing providers (improving public profile) • Contributing to sales Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 2. Reputational Risks • How link is judged by others • Collegial disapproval • Consumer discomfort • Government agency ambivalence Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 3. Governance Risks • Creeping reliance • Perception of vulnerability • Threatens independence & sovereignty • Perceived reliance leads to silence & compliance Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 4. Relationship Risks • Between colleagues • In larger organisations, between sections & levels • Potential loss of voice, loss of interest, loss of staff Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 How to respond to gambling profit-driven increases in moral jeopardy? Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Continuum of Moral Jeopardy Intensity of Relationship Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Primary Concern Moderate Risk High Risk Low Risk Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Extremely High Risk Moral Jeopardy & Loss of Voice • Community charities receiving significant funds from pokie trusts • Researchers with gambling funding avoiding “rocking the boat” • Government agency managing funds from gambling • Newspapers relying heavily on funding from gambling advertising • Politicians & political parties accepting or influencing distribution Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 Low Moral Jeopardy Environments • Principle 1: Ethical consciousness • Moral jeopardy awareness raising activities • E.g. workshops with governance boards • Principle 2: Informed participation • Requirements for disclosure of funding sources • E.g. web-based observatory tracking money • Principle 3: Independence of function • Reduction in reliance on gambling funding • E.g. seek reductions in gambling profits • Principle 4: Government duty of care • Benchmark standards regarding conflicts of interest • E.g. adherence to international charter Concluding Remarks • Long term environment of high moral jeopardy • Compromises community & government sector • Subtle degradation of democratic systems • Future obligations to devise safeguards Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008 More material… Adams, P. J. (2007). Assessing whether to receive funding support from tobacco, alcohol, gambling and other dangerous consumption industries. Addiction, 102(7), 1027–1033. Adams, P. J. Gambling, Freedom and Democracy. New York: Routledge (Jan 2008) Adams, P. J. & Rossen, F. (2006). Reducing the moral jeopardy associated with receiving funds from the proceeds of gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, Issue 17, August 2006 Centre for Gambling Studies, 2008