ENTANGLED INTEGRITY: HOW PROFITS FROM GAMBLING DISTORT OUR KNOWLEDGE BASE Peter J. Adams School of Population Health.

ENTANGLED INTEGRITY: HOW PROFITS FROM GAMBLING DISTORT OUR KNOWLEDGE BASE

Peter J. AdamsSchool of Population Health

GAMBLING & iNTEGRITY : LONDON 2014

Gambling Expenditure (losses) in NZ

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Taxes

TaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxesTaxes

CommunityBenefits

BenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefitsBenefits

ProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfitProfit

ProfitProfitProfitProfitProfit

EXPENDITURE

ExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditure

ExpenditureExpenditure

ExpenditureExpenditure

ExpenditureExpenditureExpenditureExpenditure

Mil

lion

s N

Z$

Source: NZ Department of Internal Affairs

(Excluding bingo & raffles)

WORRY

Helpers

Profit

IndustryProfit

Operating Expenses




Money is the Key Driver Addictive consumptions

potent profit generatorsMisled by constructions

of the neo-liberal autonomous consumer

Need focus on main driver, ie. money


Power of Addiction Surplus

ProductionCosts

ConsumerSurplus

AddictionSurplus

PotentCombination


PROFIT

NOT MUCH

HEAPS

NUMBER OF CONSUMERS

LOW HIGH

ADDICTIVE

NON-ADDICTIVE


Profit Consumers MANUFACTURERS

DISTRIBUTORS

COMMUNITY GROUPS

GOVERNMENT

HELPERS &RESEARCHERS


Researchers Accepting Gambling Profits by…

• Direct Transfer

• Ethical sanitizing practices



• Ethical sanitizing practicesStructural de-coupling


Division on Addictions(Cambridge Health Alliance, teaching affiliate of Harvard

Medical School)

Gamblers & Problem

Gamblers

Gambling Operators

Division of Addiction

(US$7)

Institute for Research on

Gambling Disorders

National Centre for

Responsible Gambling

Other Gambling

Researchers

T1

T5 T4

T3

T2



• Ethical sanitizing practicesStructural de-couplingTripartite partnership

committees


GOVERNMENT

SECTOR

GAMBLING

INDUSTRYHEALTH

SECTOR

Tripartite Partnership Model

No one wants the problems

Work Cooperativ

ely

Combine different

capacities


HEALTHSECTOR

GOVT.SECTOR

GAMB.INDS.

Host Responsibility

Social Marketing

Harm Minimization


HEALTHSECTOR

GOVT.SECTOR

GAMB.INDS.


HEALTH

SECTOR

GOVERNMENT

SECTOR

Non-Association Model

Need to stay

independent

Contact brokered by government

GAMBLING

INDUSTRIES

Unacceptable conflicts of

interest



• Ethical sanitizing practicesStructural de-couplingTripartite partnership

committeesIndependent panel of expertsPeer review


Relationships of Desire

• Opportunities for funding

• Fame, influence, income, doing good….

• “My piece of the action”




Ostrich Response

• “I didn’t really see that!”

• “We’ve done so much work already”

• “Let’s just pretend”

http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/ostrich_head_sand2.gif


Bargaining Response

• “Maybe it’s not that bad”

• “Gambling has its positive sides”

• “Only a small number have problems”


Missionary Response• “Money is sitting

there”• “This funding will

save lives”• “If we don’t get it,

somebody else less deserving will”


Macho Response• “Be realistic”• “To get things done

you need to make some unpopular choices”

• “You have to be in to win”


Desire vs Values• Messages favoured

my ambitions• Ethical perspective

minimised• Need an outside

reference point to gauge my views


5

Relationship

Risks

1

Ethical

Risks

4

Governance

Risks

3

Reputational Risks

2

Contributory Risks


1

Ethical

Risks

Benefiting from Deprived & Addicted

Benefiting from Deprived & Addicted

Exploiting VulnerableGroups

Exploiting VulnerableGroups

Money Derived From Harm

Money Derived From Harm


2

Contributory Risk

Contributing to Sales

Contributing to Sales

Improving Public ProfileImproving

Public Profile

Positive view ofPolicy Makers

Positive view ofPolicy Makers


3

Reputational Risks

Judgement ofColleagues

Judgement ofColleagues

Judgement of Funders

Judgement of Funders

Judgement ofStakeholdersJudgement ofStakeholders

How to work out when a relationship is

too risky?


Relations to gambling profits generate conflicts of interest

Consuming profits contributes to increased demand

Once consumed once, more likely to consume again

On-going profit consumption could lead to dependency



Intensity of Relationship

Continuum of Moral Jeopardy


OIL

LOTTERIES

POKIES

TOBACCO

ARMAMENTS


Low RiskModerate Risk

High RiskExtremelyHigh Risk

Primary Concern


Intensity Indicators

Purpose

Extent

Relevant-harm

Identifiers

Link


Purpose Extent Relevant-harm Identif iers Links

LOWRISK

MODRISK

HIGHRISK

EXTR. H.RISK

Group 1: A public health researcher receiving funds directly from a casino in publicly visible way.

Group 2: A sports club receiving half its income from gambling machinesGroup 3: A church charity providing emergency housing that receives a small amount of funding from housie

Group 4: A performing arts organisation receiving a small grant anonymously from lotteries


Around the Corner….• Learn from other addictive

consumptions• Addiction industry studies


profit

ops

prod

uct

tax

profit

ops

produc-tion

taxes

ASSOCIATIONS

levy body politicians

PUBLIC

PR FIRMS

AD AGENCIES

CHARITIES

CONSULTANTS

RESEARCHERS

OWNERS

RETAILERS/WHOLESALERS

LOCAL/FOREIGNMANUFACTURERS

GOVERNMENT

lobbying

promotion

gifting

expertise

academic

LEGAL/ACCOUNTANCY


Around the Corner….• Learn from other addictive

consumptions• Addiction industry studies• Ethical consciousness

raising• Ethical benchmarks & codes

of practice


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. (2009). Redefining the gambling problem: The production and consumption of gambling profits. Gambling Research, 21(1), 51-54.

Livingstone, C; Adams, P.J. (2011) Harm promotion: observations on the symbiosis between government and private industries in Australasia for the development of highly accessible gambling markets, Addiction, 106(1), 3-8.

Adams, P., Buetow, S. & Rossen F. (2010) Poisonous Partnerships: Health Sector Buy-In to Arrangements with Government and Addictive Consumption Industries, Addiction, 105, 585-590.

Adams, P.J., Raeburn, J. & De Silva, K. (2009) A question of balance: Prioritizing public health responses to harm from gambling. Addiction, 104, 688-691

Adams, P.J. (2013) Addiction industry studies: Understanding how proconsumption influences block effective interventions. American Journal of Public Health, 103(4), e35-8.

ENTANGLED INTEGRITY: HOW PROFITS FROM GAMBLING DISTORT OUR KNOWLEDGE BASE Peter J. Adams School of Population Health.

Documents

gambling integrity

gambling profits

responsible gambling

money slide

action slide

gambling expenditure

entangled integrity

healthsector govt