Eadington William R
Department of Economics/030, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA.
J Gambl Stud. 2003 Summer;19(2):185-213. doi: 10.1023/a:1023681315907.
This paper addresses the methodology of cost-benefit analysis as applied to policy alternatives regarding legally sanctioned gambling in its various forms. Existing economic studies regarding the social costs of gambling are reviewed and critiqued. Distinctions are made between definitions of social costs that are defined as actions which result in negative changes in aggregate social wealth (the "narrow" definition), and those which also include internal nonmarket costs that are borne by individual gamblers and their immediate families and acquaintances (the "broader" definition). This distinction is important because of its bearing on economic policies that are primarily concerned with economic efficiency versus policies that are more paternalistic, which attempt to protect individuals from self-damage or self-destruction by restricting their ranges of choice. Whether societies choose to prohibit or severely restrict permitted gambling, or allocate substantial resources to mitigate its negative side effects, rests largely on which of these perspectives regarding social costs they find more appropriate. Finally, the issue of social protection through restrictions on the availability of gambling to the entire population, versus a strategy tailored toward identifiable "problem" gamblers, is discussed.
本文探讨了成本效益分析方法在各种合法形式赌博相关政策选择中的应用。对现有关于赌博社会成本的经济研究进行了回顾与批判。区分了社会成本的不同定义,一种被定义为导致社会总财富出现负面变化的行为(“狭义”定义),另一种还包括个体赌徒及其直系亲属和熟人所承担的内部非市场成本(“广义”定义)。这种区分很重要,因为它关系到主要关注经济效率的经济政策与更具家长式作风的政策,后者试图通过限制个人选择范围来保护他们免受自我伤害或自我毁灭。社会是选择禁止或严格限制允许的赌博,还是分配大量资源来减轻其负面影响,在很大程度上取决于他们认为哪种关于社会成本的观点更合适。最后,讨论了通过限制全体民众的赌博机会来进行社会保护的问题,以及针对可识别的“问题”赌徒的策略。