IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/buc/jgbeco/v3y2009i2p37-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Evidence on the Link Between Government Subsidies and Wagering

Author

Listed:
  • Ramon P. DeGennaro

Abstract

The total volume of wagering on horse racing is important because it affects both racetrack and state revenues. This paper uses both daily data and data from individual races to explore the influence of a particular government subsidy, the sire stakes, on the racing industry. Previous work using daily data has found that this subsidy has no statistically reliable influence on the volume of wagering and that it amounts to a direct transfer from taxpayers to the breeding industry. My much larger sample of daily data produces the same result, but using new data from individual races, the results differ: I find a small but statistically significant increase in wagering on subsidized races. The increase is probably just too small to be detected in daily data. My results suggest, though, that the economic significance of the increase is almost surely too little to recoup the government's investment fully. For subsidized races to be a good use of taxpayers' money, then either taxpayers must derive other benefits or else the state must generate additional revenue because of the subsidy. I list several possible avenues to make that argument. I also suggest public goods that the industry might produce.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramon P. DeGennaro, 2009. "New Evidence on the Link Between Government Subsidies and Wagering," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 3(2), pages 37-62, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:buc:jgbeco:v:3:y:2009:i:2:p:37-62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ubplj.org/index.php/jgbe/article/view/545
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:feb:framed:0074 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    3. Michael Cain & David Law & David Peel, 2008. "Bounded cumulative prospect theory: some implications for gambling outcomes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 5-15.
    4. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56, pages 279-279.
    5. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
    6. Chamberlain, Gary, 1983. "A characterization of the distributions that imply mean--Variance utility functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 185-201, February.
    7. David Peel & David Law & Michael Cain, 2000. "Product bundling and a rule of thumb versus the Harville formulae: can each way bets with UK bookmakers generate abnormal returns," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(13), pages 1737-1744.
    8. Farrell, Lisa & Walker, Ian, 1999. "The welfare effects of lotto: evidence from the UK," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 99-120, April.
    9. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    10. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    11. Glenn W Harrison & John A List & Charles Towe, 2007. "Naturally Occurring Preferences and Exogenous Laboratory Experiments: A Case Study of Risk Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 433-458, March.
    12. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    13. Ali, Mukhtar M, 1977. "Probability and Utility Estimates for Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(4), pages 803-815, August.
    14. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    15. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    16. Hartog, Joop & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada & Jonker, Nicole, 2002. "Linking Measured Risk Aversion to Individual Characteristics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 3-26.
    17. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    18. Vaughan Williams, Leighton, 1999. "Information Efficiency in Betting Markets: A Survey," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 1-30, January.
    19. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    20. Conlisk, John, 1993. "The Utility of Gambling," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 255-275, June.
    21. D. Law & D. A. Peel, 2009. "Skewness as an explanation of gambling in cumulative prospect theory," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(6), pages 685-689.
    22. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 151-151.
    23. Meyer, Jack, 1987. "Two-moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 421-430, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    REAL OPTIONS; SWITCHING OPTIONS; BETTING; ODDS; GAME;

    JEL classification:

    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:buc:jgbeco:v:3:y:2009:i:2:p:37-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross). General contact details of provider: http://www.ubpl.co.uk/ .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.