Lottery Mania: An Editor's View H. Roy Kaplan, Ph.D.
The growth and transformation of state lotteries in the United States during the last half of the twentieth century has been dramatic. As lotteries have evolved into high stakes games of a pari-mutuel nature, states have come to rely on them as revenue generators. But lotteries have only limited ability to raise funds for government, and unintended social consequences derived from their growth and evolution may outweigh their revenue generating capacity.
We all have conceptions of what constitutes lottery mania, the most common form being the hysteria that surrounds the frenzied buying of tickets when lotto jackpots rollover and reach astronomical heights. Waiting in line for hours to purchase a ticket may seem to be sufficient grounds for commitment to a mental health facility. To economists and public policy experts like J o h n Mikesell, who demonstrate (in this issue) that lotteries are not the fiscal savior of governments, the stampede of states to join the lottery bandwagon m a y well qualify as mania if not dementia. But before we start throwing labels around, we must not forget Thomas Szasz's observation (1970) that mental illness is often in the eye of the beholder, a labelling phenomenon which the majority of "normals" use to stigmatize and stereotype minorities as "deviants." If that is true, and there is abundant evidence
This a revision of a paper presented at the Fourth National Conference on Compulsive Gambling, June 3, 1989, Des Moines, Iowa. Send reprint requests to: H. Roy Kaplan, Ph.D., National Conference of Christians and Jews, 4600 West Cypress St., Suite 333, Tampa, FL 33607.
Journal of Gambling Studies Vol. 6(4), Winter 1990 9 1990 Human Sciences Press
289
290
JOURNAL OF GAMBLING STUDIES
to support it, then the lottery phenomenon may indeed be normal, since a majority of the population purchases tickets and thirty-two states plus the District of Columbia will have active lotteries by the end of 1990. There are also indications that the Federal Government may soon initiate a national lottery ostensibly to reduce some of the national debt. But the mere fact that large numbers of tickets are sold to the public, and many states have legalized lotteries does not prove the rationality of such actions, for history is replete with illustrations of mass delusion. Are we then all insane? What is the lottery's attraction? W h y has it so mesmerized our society? If ofie looks at the history of this planet with its 4.5 billion years of evolution, man's place occupies a tiny niche, like a blip on an EEG~ Yet, lotteries have existed throughout most of human history and have played varying roles in the development of societies, systems of currency, and the accumulation of capital (See Ezell, 1960). Indeed, many countries have had lotteries for decades, some even centuries. Is there anything different about the lottery phenomenon in the United States in the latter half of the twentieth century? Certainly, lotteries have their critics. Much of the antipathy that lotteries evoke among the intelligentsia emanates from their disdain of the games, which are viewed as simplistic diversions, or disdain of the working class who are presumably too naive to contemplate the probabilities of winning. For some moralists the issue is whether the instant fame and fortune offered through the games encourages a breakdown in stable societal values and a dissolution of the work ethic. Other critics have questioned the paradoxical role of governments, charged with protecting the public welfare, for having promoted activities which may be inimical to some of their citizens. Gabrielle and Reuven Brenner address the issue of gambling and social policy in this issue of the journal and conclude that government and industry opposition to lotteries is the result of fear of competition for labor and money. However, the opponents of legalized gambling seem to be fighting a losing battle as financially beleaguered states are seduced by the lure of an alternative to taxes. One might summarize concerns about lotteries in the following questions, for which there are, unfortunately, too few definitive an-
H. ROY KAPLAN
291
swers. And even if there were, it would make little difference to the public, which has institutionalized the games into the fabric of society.
C E N T R A L ISSUES C O N C E R N I N G L O T T E R I E S IN T H E U N I T E D STATES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
What effects do lotteries have on the work ethic? Do lotteries increase compulsive gambling? Are the poor heavy lottery players? What is the impact of lotteries on states' economies, entrepreneurs, and the pari-mutuel industry? What impact do lottery funds have on earmarked categories? What impact do lottery funds have on the general revenue? W h y do people buy lottery tickets? What is the general effect of lotteries on society?
This special issue of the Journal of Gambling Studies addresses these questions, but while some answers are known, others are just beginning to be explored and still others are a mystery.
AN O V E R V I E W OF STATE L O T T E R I E S M u c h of the concern and consternation about state lotteries emanates from the transformation they have undergone since their reintroduction in this country in New Hampshire in 1964. From sleepy New England towns with thousands of people purchasing monthly tickets, lotteries are found today in over half the states. Sixty to eighty percent of the population in lottery states purchase tickets at one time or another. The lottery industry will gross over $20 billion in fiscal 1990, ranking it among the top 30 industries by gross revenue in the United States. As the industry has changed and grown, so too have the games and prizes. Lotteries have evolved from passive monthly and weekly draws with pre-printed numbers on tickets, to scratch-off instant tickets, daily numbers and giant jackpot lotto games where players can select their own numbers. This, perhaps more than anything else, has
292
JOURNAL OF GAMBLING STUDIES
drawn attention to lotteries. As Professor DeBoer demonstrates in this special issue, the bigger the jackpot, the greater the play; and there seems to be an insatiable desire for the games. Some call it mania, others a shark-like feeding frenzy that gripped the population of Illinois in April, 1989 when the lotto jackpot hit $69 million. Two weeks later the Pennsylvania jackpot soared to $115 million. To date, the largest single winner is Sheelah Ryan, a 65 year old part time realtor who resides near Orlando, Florida where she won $55.1 million. Have lotteries contributed to our society? This is a difficult question to answer because many states merge lottery funds in the general revenue where they cannot be traced. In those states that earmark funds for special categories, education being the most common, the money does not appreciably augment funding as Professor Mikesell shows. Lottery revenues seldom exceed a small percent of the budgetary needs of states: Another issue concerning earmarking revolves around the concept of what economists call fungibility or replaceability. Earmarked funds frequently replace general revenue funds rather than supplement them, and designated categories do not receive the anticipated bonanza the public or recipients expect. What then is the effect of a lottery on a state's economy? While it is difficult to assess the impact that lotteries have on the business community, there are indications that businesses selling tickets do better than competitors who don't. Few ticket agents reap a bonanza from the 5 percent commission they receive for a ticket, but tickets do attract customers. However, some businesses consider ticket sales an impediment to other sales and have discontinued them, e.g. the giant WinnDixie supermarket chain in Florida. A great deal of attention has been focused on lotteries by the parimutuel industry (especially horse racing), which has blamed lotteries for lower attendance and handle. Yet, Kaplan demonstrates that the problems experienced by the pari-mutuel industry are the result of changing consumer tastes, lack of aggressive marketing, and excessive government takeout rates which deter regular patrons. The most heated debate concerns the impact that lotteries are having on societal values and behavior. Because numbers are selected randomly and there is no way a person can gain an edge or handicap lotteries, they lack the excitement and sense of mastery found in pari-
H. ROY KAPLAN
293
mutuel wagering, casinos, and sports betting. Still, many fortunes are being made by self-proclaimed experts who purportedly have systems for picking winning numbers. Critics of lotteries point to the lines of ticket buyers, the advertisements promising instant fame and fortune, and the materialistic ethos surrounding the lottery dream; and they conclude that the work ethic is being destroyed and replaced by a no-work ethic which places success before hard work and luck over perseverance. Some would say that the very justification for buying a lottery ticket supports the assumption of the dissolution of the work ethic, since it represents escapist b e h a v i o r an avoidance of dealing with real world problems through the ephemeral chance of courting Lady Luck. Yet, studies of winners across the United States and Canada over nearly twenty years reveal consistency in their work behavior (Kaplan, 1985; 1987). After winning even multi-million dollar jackpots, a majority of winners (75 percent) continue to work. Quits and retires are likely to have less than a high school education, work less than 30 hours a week, and earn less than $10,000 a year. But more importantly, when people are satisfied with their jobs and enjoy what they're doing, they remain in the labor force. M a n y younger workers who quit their jobs went back to school to embark on new careers. But what effect are lotteries having on the work ethic of the rest of society? The answer to this remains something of an enigma, for it goes to the very core of lottery mania. To grasp the impact of lotteries on society one must first comprehend why people buy tickets. The driving force behind ticket purchases is not civic responsibility but "the dream." "The dream" is many things to many people, but it can be expressed in one word: independence. It is the desire to be self-sufficient, relieved of the economic burdens that weigh heavily on us all; it is the prospect of getting involved in a meaningful form of work. Lottery winners are financially secure, and many share their windfalls with their families, buy new homes, cars, and pay for their children's education. And they also buy health care--everything from false teeth to operations and nursing home care for themselves or relatives. If it is mania that grips our society, it is not primarily attributable to lotteries, for the escapist dreams and desires are the manifestation of a deeper malaise that affects our social system. Lotteries are merely a vehicle through which materialism, the dominant value of our time, finds expression.
294
JOURNAL OF GAMBLING STUDIES
Are lotteries destroying the work ethic? Have they destroyed the work ethic in France? Germany? Japan? or Israel? These countries have had lotteries far longer than we have. O f course, some people will have difficulty dealing rationally with lotteries-either through naivety or ignorance, or out of desperation. This brings us to an issue that has been evoking a great deal of interest--what impact do lotteries have on compulsive gambling? Although there is little systematic empirical evidence at the present time to justify sweeping conclusions, Professors Hraba, Mok and Huff have found a small but significant association between lottery playing and problem gambling. Dr. Valerie Lorenz eloquently describes the increasing incidence of lottery-related compulsive gambling problems among her patients. And Rick, a recovering compulsive lottery addict, poignantly reviews his lottery-induced slide into oblivion. In New Jersey, the Council on Compulsive Gambling has noted a dramatic increase in the number of lottery-related calls coming into their hotline (now running about 19 percent annually). An even more perplexing issue is whether the poor comprise the bulk of players. This a complex phenomenon, since a broad crosssection of the population purchases tickets at one time or another, but the issue here is frequency and amount. Dr. Edward Stanek, the director of the Iowa lottery, has said that it's unfair to call the lottery regressive because the poor spend a disproportionate amount of their money on virtually everything they purchase. But one cannot equate the purchase of food with lottery tickets. Essentially, what we have is a criticism of state government's role in promoting an activity that can be burdensome on some segments of society. But the issue goes further than that, because the evidence concerning the dollar amounts spent on lottery tickets by the poor is equivocal. We're just not sure how much they spend, and some people frankly don't care, because they view lottery purchases as a form of discretionary s p e n d i n g - b e y o n d the realm and responsibility of the state. Certainly, we don't get our paternalistic juices flowing as rapidly over spending by the wealthy on commodities, stocks and futures, yet many clinicians have treated people who were compulsive gamblers in these markets. Our society may have a double standard, viewing this latter kind of gambling as "productive" and "business" much as white collar criminals are accorded special status in our courts.
H. ROY KAPLAN
295
Do the poor play more often? The lottery market appears to be a dual one, with the poor concentrating on the daily numbers and instant games and the middle class focusing on lotto. Since lotto sales outstrip the daily and instant games in most states, the answer should be selfevident. But other research indicates there is a great deal of underreporting among lottery ticket purchasers. Brenner et al. (1977) found as much as 50 percent underreporting in Canada, and it was greatest among the poor. And analyses of winners by census tracts (Clotfelter and Cook, 1989) revealed a high proportion came from the lower socioeconomic strata. Obviously, this is a vexing issue that deserves further investigation.
T H E F U T U R E OF L O T T E R I E S IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S
One thing is certain about lotteries: they are here to stay. The public likes them and states have become wedded to them. The cheap high they offer feeds the dream for materialism, and despite their inability to solve the financial problems of states, the money they contribute to state coffers is welcomed by politicians who quake at the thought of the dreaded "t" word. In the coming years we can expect lottery games to evolve with the inevitable ebb and flow of player interest. As new lotteries come on line and mature they invariably pass through peaks and valleys which sometimes causes a shortfall in revenue and increased pressure on the industry to rebound (Mikesell and Zorn, 1986). That pressure along with the increasing financial needs of government will serve to extend lotteries throughout the nation. By the turn of the century we can expect to have lotteries in nearly every state (there is some form of legalized gambling in every state today with the exception of Utah and Hawaii), and a national lottery either organized by the federal government or through an extension of Lotto America. U n d e r the pressure to produce in the face of player apathy and the insatiable needs of government, games will become more enthralling, active, and seductive. In addition to video games which have already been introduced in some areas, we can expect to see variations of sports betting along the lines of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation's
296
JOURNAL
OF GAMBLING STUDIES
Punto, and the new sports betting game in Oregon on the National Football League. And there will be large lotto jackpots--a proven crowd pleaser, which means we can expect to see a continuation, perhaps even an increase in lottery mania in the coming years.
REFERENCES Brenner, G., Montmarquette, C. & Brenner, R. (1987, October). Expenditures on lotteries: What do people say and what do they do? An economic analysis. Working Paper No. 8735, University of Montreal. Clotfelter, C., & Cook, P.J. (1989). Selling hope: State lotteries in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ezell, J.S. (1960). Fortune's merry wheel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kaplan, H.R. (1985). Lottery winners and work commitment: A behavioral test of the American work ethic. Journal of the Institute of Socioeconomic Studies, 10, 82-94. Kaplan, H.R. (1987). Lottery winners: The myth and reality. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3, 168-178. Mikesell, J.L. & Zorn, C.K. (1986). State lotteries as fiscal savior or fiscal fraud: A look at the evidence. Public Administration Review, 46, 311-320. Szasz, T. (1970). Ideology and insanity. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
The growth and transformation of state lotteries in the United States during the last half of the twentieth century has been dramatic. As lotteries have evolved into high stakes games of a pari-mutuel nature, states have come to rely on them as revenue generators. But lotteries have only limited ability to raise funds for government, and unintended social consequences derived from their growth and evolution may outweigh their revenue generating capacity.
We all have conceptions of what constitutes lottery mania, the most common form being the hysteria that surrounds the frenzied buying of tickets when lotto jackpots rollover and reach astronomical heights. Waiting in line for hours to purchase a ticket may seem to be sufficient grounds for commitment to a mental health facility. To economists and public policy experts like J o h n Mikesell, who demonstrate (in this issue) that lotteries are not the fiscal savior of governments, the stampede of states to join the lottery bandwagon m a y well qualify as mania if not dementia. But before we start throwing labels around, we must not forget Thomas Szasz's observation (1970) that mental illness is often in the eye of the beholder, a labelling phenomenon which the majority of "normals" use to stigmatize and stereotype minorities as "deviants." If that is true, and there is abundant evidence
This a revision of a paper presented at the Fourth National Conference on Compulsive Gambling, June 3, 1989, Des Moines, Iowa. Send reprint requests to: H. Roy Kaplan, Ph.D., National Conference of Christians and Jews, 4600 West Cypress St., Suite 333, Tampa, FL 33607.
Journal of Gambling Studies Vol. 6(4), Winter 1990 9 1990 Human Sciences Press
289
290
JOURNAL OF GAMBLING STUDIES
to support it, then the lottery phenomenon may indeed be normal, since a majority of the population purchases tickets and thirty-two states plus the District of Columbia will have active lotteries by the end of 1990. There are also indications that the Federal Government may soon initiate a national lottery ostensibly to reduce some of the national debt. But the mere fact that large numbers of tickets are sold to the public, and many states have legalized lotteries does not prove the rationality of such actions, for history is replete with illustrations of mass delusion. Are we then all insane? What is the lottery's attraction? W h y has it so mesmerized our society? If ofie looks at the history of this planet with its 4.5 billion years of evolution, man's place occupies a tiny niche, like a blip on an EEG~ Yet, lotteries have existed throughout most of human history and have played varying roles in the development of societies, systems of currency, and the accumulation of capital (See Ezell, 1960). Indeed, many countries have had lotteries for decades, some even centuries. Is there anything different about the lottery phenomenon in the United States in the latter half of the twentieth century? Certainly, lotteries have their critics. Much of the antipathy that lotteries evoke among the intelligentsia emanates from their disdain of the games, which are viewed as simplistic diversions, or disdain of the working class who are presumably too naive to contemplate the probabilities of winning. For some moralists the issue is whether the instant fame and fortune offered through the games encourages a breakdown in stable societal values and a dissolution of the work ethic. Other critics have questioned the paradoxical role of governments, charged with protecting the public welfare, for having promoted activities which may be inimical to some of their citizens. Gabrielle and Reuven Brenner address the issue of gambling and social policy in this issue of the journal and conclude that government and industry opposition to lotteries is the result of fear of competition for labor and money. However, the opponents of legalized gambling seem to be fighting a losing battle as financially beleaguered states are seduced by the lure of an alternative to taxes. One might summarize concerns about lotteries in the following questions, for which there are, unfortunately, too few definitive an-
H. ROY KAPLAN
291
swers. And even if there were, it would make little difference to the public, which has institutionalized the games into the fabric of society.
C E N T R A L ISSUES C O N C E R N I N G L O T T E R I E S IN T H E U N I T E D STATES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
What effects do lotteries have on the work ethic? Do lotteries increase compulsive gambling? Are the poor heavy lottery players? What is the impact of lotteries on states' economies, entrepreneurs, and the pari-mutuel industry? What impact do lottery funds have on earmarked categories? What impact do lottery funds have on the general revenue? W h y do people buy lottery tickets? What is the general effect of lotteries on society?
This special issue of the Journal of Gambling Studies addresses these questions, but while some answers are known, others are just beginning to be explored and still others are a mystery.
AN O V E R V I E W OF STATE L O T T E R I E S M u c h of the concern and consternation about state lotteries emanates from the transformation they have undergone since their reintroduction in this country in New Hampshire in 1964. From sleepy New England towns with thousands of people purchasing monthly tickets, lotteries are found today in over half the states. Sixty to eighty percent of the population in lottery states purchase tickets at one time or another. The lottery industry will gross over $20 billion in fiscal 1990, ranking it among the top 30 industries by gross revenue in the United States. As the industry has changed and grown, so too have the games and prizes. Lotteries have evolved from passive monthly and weekly draws with pre-printed numbers on tickets, to scratch-off instant tickets, daily numbers and giant jackpot lotto games where players can select their own numbers. This, perhaps more than anything else, has
292
JOURNAL OF GAMBLING STUDIES
drawn attention to lotteries. As Professor DeBoer demonstrates in this special issue, the bigger the jackpot, the greater the play; and there seems to be an insatiable desire for the games. Some call it mania, others a shark-like feeding frenzy that gripped the population of Illinois in April, 1989 when the lotto jackpot hit $69 million. Two weeks later the Pennsylvania jackpot soared to $115 million. To date, the largest single winner is Sheelah Ryan, a 65 year old part time realtor who resides near Orlando, Florida where she won $55.1 million. Have lotteries contributed to our society? This is a difficult question to answer because many states merge lottery funds in the general revenue where they cannot be traced. In those states that earmark funds for special categories, education being the most common, the money does not appreciably augment funding as Professor Mikesell shows. Lottery revenues seldom exceed a small percent of the budgetary needs of states: Another issue concerning earmarking revolves around the concept of what economists call fungibility or replaceability. Earmarked funds frequently replace general revenue funds rather than supplement them, and designated categories do not receive the anticipated bonanza the public or recipients expect. What then is the effect of a lottery on a state's economy? While it is difficult to assess the impact that lotteries have on the business community, there are indications that businesses selling tickets do better than competitors who don't. Few ticket agents reap a bonanza from the 5 percent commission they receive for a ticket, but tickets do attract customers. However, some businesses consider ticket sales an impediment to other sales and have discontinued them, e.g. the giant WinnDixie supermarket chain in Florida. A great deal of attention has been focused on lotteries by the parimutuel industry (especially horse racing), which has blamed lotteries for lower attendance and handle. Yet, Kaplan demonstrates that the problems experienced by the pari-mutuel industry are the result of changing consumer tastes, lack of aggressive marketing, and excessive government takeout rates which deter regular patrons. The most heated debate concerns the impact that lotteries are having on societal values and behavior. Because numbers are selected randomly and there is no way a person can gain an edge or handicap lotteries, they lack the excitement and sense of mastery found in pari-
H. ROY KAPLAN
293
mutuel wagering, casinos, and sports betting. Still, many fortunes are being made by self-proclaimed experts who purportedly have systems for picking winning numbers. Critics of lotteries point to the lines of ticket buyers, the advertisements promising instant fame and fortune, and the materialistic ethos surrounding the lottery dream; and they conclude that the work ethic is being destroyed and replaced by a no-work ethic which places success before hard work and luck over perseverance. Some would say that the very justification for buying a lottery ticket supports the assumption of the dissolution of the work ethic, since it represents escapist b e h a v i o r an avoidance of dealing with real world problems through the ephemeral chance of courting Lady Luck. Yet, studies of winners across the United States and Canada over nearly twenty years reveal consistency in their work behavior (Kaplan, 1985; 1987). After winning even multi-million dollar jackpots, a majority of winners (75 percent) continue to work. Quits and retires are likely to have less than a high school education, work less than 30 hours a week, and earn less than $10,000 a year. But more importantly, when people are satisfied with their jobs and enjoy what they're doing, they remain in the labor force. M a n y younger workers who quit their jobs went back to school to embark on new careers. But what effect are lotteries having on the work ethic of the rest of society? The answer to this remains something of an enigma, for it goes to the very core of lottery mania. To grasp the impact of lotteries on society one must first comprehend why people buy tickets. The driving force behind ticket purchases is not civic responsibility but "the dream." "The dream" is many things to many people, but it can be expressed in one word: independence. It is the desire to be self-sufficient, relieved of the economic burdens that weigh heavily on us all; it is the prospect of getting involved in a meaningful form of work. Lottery winners are financially secure, and many share their windfalls with their families, buy new homes, cars, and pay for their children's education. And they also buy health care--everything from false teeth to operations and nursing home care for themselves or relatives. If it is mania that grips our society, it is not primarily attributable to lotteries, for the escapist dreams and desires are the manifestation of a deeper malaise that affects our social system. Lotteries are merely a vehicle through which materialism, the dominant value of our time, finds expression.
294
JOURNAL OF GAMBLING STUDIES
Are lotteries destroying the work ethic? Have they destroyed the work ethic in France? Germany? Japan? or Israel? These countries have had lotteries far longer than we have. O f course, some people will have difficulty dealing rationally with lotteries-either through naivety or ignorance, or out of desperation. This brings us to an issue that has been evoking a great deal of interest--what impact do lotteries have on compulsive gambling? Although there is little systematic empirical evidence at the present time to justify sweeping conclusions, Professors Hraba, Mok and Huff have found a small but significant association between lottery playing and problem gambling. Dr. Valerie Lorenz eloquently describes the increasing incidence of lottery-related compulsive gambling problems among her patients. And Rick, a recovering compulsive lottery addict, poignantly reviews his lottery-induced slide into oblivion. In New Jersey, the Council on Compulsive Gambling has noted a dramatic increase in the number of lottery-related calls coming into their hotline (now running about 19 percent annually). An even more perplexing issue is whether the poor comprise the bulk of players. This a complex phenomenon, since a broad crosssection of the population purchases tickets at one time or another, but the issue here is frequency and amount. Dr. Edward Stanek, the director of the Iowa lottery, has said that it's unfair to call the lottery regressive because the poor spend a disproportionate amount of their money on virtually everything they purchase. But one cannot equate the purchase of food with lottery tickets. Essentially, what we have is a criticism of state government's role in promoting an activity that can be burdensome on some segments of society. But the issue goes further than that, because the evidence concerning the dollar amounts spent on lottery tickets by the poor is equivocal. We're just not sure how much they spend, and some people frankly don't care, because they view lottery purchases as a form of discretionary s p e n d i n g - b e y o n d the realm and responsibility of the state. Certainly, we don't get our paternalistic juices flowing as rapidly over spending by the wealthy on commodities, stocks and futures, yet many clinicians have treated people who were compulsive gamblers in these markets. Our society may have a double standard, viewing this latter kind of gambling as "productive" and "business" much as white collar criminals are accorded special status in our courts.
H. ROY KAPLAN
295
Do the poor play more often? The lottery market appears to be a dual one, with the poor concentrating on the daily numbers and instant games and the middle class focusing on lotto. Since lotto sales outstrip the daily and instant games in most states, the answer should be selfevident. But other research indicates there is a great deal of underreporting among lottery ticket purchasers. Brenner et al. (1977) found as much as 50 percent underreporting in Canada, and it was greatest among the poor. And analyses of winners by census tracts (Clotfelter and Cook, 1989) revealed a high proportion came from the lower socioeconomic strata. Obviously, this is a vexing issue that deserves further investigation.
T H E F U T U R E OF L O T T E R I E S IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S
One thing is certain about lotteries: they are here to stay. The public likes them and states have become wedded to them. The cheap high they offer feeds the dream for materialism, and despite their inability to solve the financial problems of states, the money they contribute to state coffers is welcomed by politicians who quake at the thought of the dreaded "t" word. In the coming years we can expect lottery games to evolve with the inevitable ebb and flow of player interest. As new lotteries come on line and mature they invariably pass through peaks and valleys which sometimes causes a shortfall in revenue and increased pressure on the industry to rebound (Mikesell and Zorn, 1986). That pressure along with the increasing financial needs of government will serve to extend lotteries throughout the nation. By the turn of the century we can expect to have lotteries in nearly every state (there is some form of legalized gambling in every state today with the exception of Utah and Hawaii), and a national lottery either organized by the federal government or through an extension of Lotto America. U n d e r the pressure to produce in the face of player apathy and the insatiable needs of government, games will become more enthralling, active, and seductive. In addition to video games which have already been introduced in some areas, we can expect to see variations of sports betting along the lines of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation's
296
JOURNAL
OF GAMBLING STUDIES
Punto, and the new sports betting game in Oregon on the National Football League. And there will be large lotto jackpots--a proven crowd pleaser, which means we can expect to see a continuation, perhaps even an increase in lottery mania in the coming years.
REFERENCES Brenner, G., Montmarquette, C. & Brenner, R. (1987, October). Expenditures on lotteries: What do people say and what do they do? An economic analysis. Working Paper No. 8735, University of Montreal. Clotfelter, C., & Cook, P.J. (1989). Selling hope: State lotteries in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ezell, J.S. (1960). Fortune's merry wheel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kaplan, H.R. (1985). Lottery winners and work commitment: A behavioral test of the American work ethic. Journal of the Institute of Socioeconomic Studies, 10, 82-94. Kaplan, H.R. (1987). Lottery winners: The myth and reality. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 3, 168-178. Mikesell, J.L. & Zorn, C.K. (1986). State lotteries as fiscal savior or fiscal fraud: A look at the evidence. Public Administration Review, 46, 311-320. Szasz, T. (1970). Ideology and insanity. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
