The End of 'Responsible Gambling': Reinvigorating Gambling Studies

Author:

Livingstone Charles

Abstract

This paper argues that gambling research has, since the neoliberal-inspired period of gambling legalisation in the late twentieth century, been dominated by a specific discourse, that of ‘responsible gambling’. This discourse originated in a conjunction of rationalities of government and capital, in the process of which commercial gambling was legitimated. Its liberalisation represented an extension of rationalities and technologies to form a new market from what had previously been an unlawful activity. The problems and harms associated with this liberalisation became subject to claims from some pockets of expertise, notably psy-sciences, and thus became a focus for analysis. As a consequence, gambling research has been characterised by a discourse of individual pathology as the focus of study. The orthodoxy formed from this discourse constitutes a system or apparatus of economic and quasi-medical power, in which reflexive relations between gambling operators, governments, charities, and some researchers, have been significant. These reflexive relations have largely constituted the field of gambling research. This paper contends that the orthodoxy of gambling research has failed to prevent harm arising from gambling and has restricted the expansion of knowledge. A systemic critique of the orthodox discourses and technologies that constitute much of gambling research is required to address these categories. This would also address a lack of diversity in theoretical framings of gambling research priorities. Alternative ways of conceptualising the problem of legalised gambling have emerged, most clearly under the discourse of ‘public health’. The current competition between these two discourses might be categorised as between an orthodoxy (‘responsible gambling’) and a heterodoxy (‘public health’). Extending the heterodoxy into a critical public health discourse may provide a basis for rapid expansion and diversification of the research field, particularly along paths that expand knowledge, facilitate effective regulation of harmful products, and prevent harm to individuals, communities, and populations.

Publisher

University of Alberta Libraries

Reference96 articles.

1. Acheson, E. D. (1988). Public Health in England. The report of the Committee of Inquiry into the future development of the Public Health Function. House of Commons Parliamentary Papers online. https://www.fph.org.uk/media/3475/acheson-1988.pdf

2. Adams, P. (2016). Moral jeopardy: Risks of accepting money from the alcohol, tobacco and gambling industries . Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316118689

3. Bear, L., James, D., Simpson, N., Alexander, E., Bhogal, J., Bowers, R., Cannell, F., Lohiya, A. G., Koch, I., Laws, M., Lenhard, J. F., Long, N. J., Pearson, A., Samanani, F., Vicol, D. O., Vieira, J., Watt, C., Wuerth, M., Whittle, C., & Bărbulescu, T. Z. (2020). A right to care – The social foundations of recovery from Covid-19. London School of Economics and Political Science – LSE Anthropology. https://www.lse.ac.uk/anthropology/assets/documents/research/Covid-and-Care/ARighttoCare-CovidandCare-Final-2310.pdf

4. Becker G. S., & Murphy K. M. (1988). A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy, 96(4), 675-700. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1830469

5. Bero, L. (2005). Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Reports, 120(2), 200-208. doi: 10.1177/003335490512000215

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3