According to right wing think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, there is “no obvious reason why a reasonably sized town or city should not host at least one small casino”.
It was recently revealed in the Guardian Newspaper that the IEA, a body committed to free market economics and low taxation produced a report following an £8,000 donation from the National Casino Industry Forum, advocating a further liberalisation of gambling laws.
The body, registered as a charity, has made the argument for deregulation of the economy and tax cuts since 1955. On its website, the IEA states that: "...it is more vital than ever that we promote the intellectual case for a free economy, low taxes, freedom in education, health and welfare and lower levels of regulation. "
The organisation's focus on 'freedom' is emphasised throughout its literature, but paradoxically in gambling it has found a cause that has limited the freedoms of countless people throughout the country.
In classical economic thought, each individual is 'homo economicus', a rational figure who constantly seeks to maximise utility or pleasure and minimise risk. Homo economicus will choose good products over poor ones, cheap train fare over expensive alternative and their spending will reflect what society at large wants. This will then encourage businesses to make whatever is actually desired by the populace. On this basis, free market thinkers argue, government should get out of the way and allow buyers and sellers in a marketplace to interact freely. If casinos are selling a product, why should anyone intervene to stop them?
However, what if an economics textbook can't explain the complexities of the human condition? What if human beings are a lot less 'rational' and a lot more confusing in their choices than it might first appear?
There is nothing about addiction in any conventional economics textbook, which is a pity, because once addiction is introduced to the conversation the idea of rational self interest goes out of the window. The argument for deregulation is punctured and the case for protecting addicts from the whims of organisations that can exploit their illness becomes overwhelming. That is, of course, as long as one cares about the powerless and is not already aligned with the interests of the powerful.
The IEA, with its charitable status no doubt considers itself a positive force in society, and its faith that government spending cuts, minimal taxation and a corporate free for all result in positive outcomes for the populace is no doubt sincerely held.
This being so, it must be purely through ignorance and naivety that the organisation advocates the ever greater proliferation of an industry with a track record of such destructiveness.
The Gambling Commission's 2018 report into gambling harm revealed the scale of problem gambling in the UK:
" It is estimated that there are around 373,000 problem gamblers in England, 30,000 in Scotland and around 27,000 in Wales. These estimates are likely to be conservative as the surveys do not include certain population groups more likely to be more vulnerable to harm."
The IEA's proposals would see these numbers of suffering addicts grow and the harm to their families and loved ones escalate. They would see more wealth extracted from the poorest communities and the average of two gambling related suicides a day increase. So when their report states that there is no obvious reason why every town shouldn't have a casino, a simple examination of the facts would suggest that they have either done no research, or their report is being less than candid.
If you have a gambling problem and would like to help inform the IEA about why there should be fewer, not more casinos, you can send them your views here.