IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

It could be you! But what's it worth? The welfare gain from Lotto

Listed author(s):
  • Lisa Farrell

    (Institute for Fiscal Studies)

  • Ian Walker


    (Institute for Fiscal Studies and Lancaster University)

This research is concerned with the demand for lottery tickets and uses data for the UK National Lottery that records the behaviour, incomes and characteristics of almost 10,000 individuals. Some of the data relates to people surveyed during a "double rollover" - the jackpot had been enhanced by adding the jackpots from the previous two weeks which had not been won. This allows us to estimate how the demand for lottery tickets varies with the rate of return since this return is higher in rollover draws. It is noticeable that richer people appear to be more likely to play in rollover weeks and we need to control for income in order to obtain unbiased estimates of the price elasticity. We find that the demand for the UL National Lottery is quite sensitive to changes in the financial rate of return arising from rollovers: a typical rollover increases the rate of return by about 10% and generates an additional 16% in sales. The income effect is negative - a lottery ticket is an example of an "inferior" good where the rich buy less than the poor: an 10% increase in income generates a fall in demand of 1.2%. But, to offset this negative income effect we find that some characteristics associated with high income (e.g. being middle aged) are positively correlated with lottery demand. We use the estimates to compute the welfare gain from the introduction of the lottery. The idea behind this is that participation in the lottery is voluntary, so only those who feel that it is beneficial to buy tickets will buy them. The implication of this is that, although consumers are, on average, ex post financially worse off after buying lottery tickets (since they are an extremely poor investment with a return that is usually approximately -55% per week) they feel better off ex ante when they buy them because of the pleasure associated with doing so. We do not know what these pleasures are but can presume that they exist from the fact that people buy this commodity with such a poor financial return. Our estimates imply that the pleasure is worth an average of 71p per draw per adult: which works out as 1.8 billion per annum - this is about what a 1p reduction in the income tax rate would be worth on average. Moreover, the gain is largest for those that spend the most - although the gain from successive tickets falls. Thus, the biggest spenders, which are the middle income group, gain most. However, this arises because the data confounds the lifecycle effect and the income effect: our estimates imply that those with the highest income over their lifetime will buy fewest tickets over their lifetime. Thus, the largest lifetime gains will be to those with lowest permanent incomes

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Institute for Fiscal Studies in its series IFS Working Papers with number W97/04.

in new window

Date of creation: 16 Aug 1997
Handle: RePEc:ifs:ifsewp:97/04
Contact details of provider: Postal:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE

Phone: (+44) 020 7291 4800
Fax: (+44) 020 7323 4780
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Postal: The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ifs:ifsewp:97/04. 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: (Emma Hyman)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.