Methodological issues in the social cost of gambling studies.
The appropriate way to classify and measure the "social costs" of gambling is a very important, unresolved methodological issue that has been addressed by Collins and Lapsley (2000); Thompson, Gazel, and Rickman (1999); and Walker and Barnett (1999), among others. What should be included and excluded from social cost studies continues to be a controversial issue, as illustrated in the literature and recent conferences. This paper is an attempt to explain the "economics" conception of social costs in accessible language. By using a simple economic model and everyday examples, it shows that the economics methodology is better than the other methodologies currently available. There are four specific goals of the paper: (1) Discuss the importance of the social cost methodological debate and the state of research in the area; (2) Explain the Walker-Barnett definition of social cost in the context of a simple production possibilities frontier and indifference curve model; (3) Use simple illustrative examples to show why many of the alleged social costs should not be classified as such; and (4) Suggest a new method for analyzing the social costs and effects attributable to pathological gambling.
Walker
Douglas M
DM
Department of Economics Finance & Marketing, Campus Box 14, Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA 31061-0490, USA. walker@gcsu.edu
D016739:Behavior, Addictive / Q000191:economics*; D017281:Cost of Illness; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005715:Gambling; D006801:Humans; D018803:Models, Economic; D012107:Research Design; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors