IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Taxation and the Demand for Gambling: New Evidence from the United Kingdom


  • David Paton

    (Business School, University of Nottingham, UK)

  • Donald S. Siegel

    () (Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180-3590, USA)

  • Leighton Vaughan Williams

    (Department of Economics and Finance, Nottingham Trent University, UK)


In October 2001, the U.K. government implemented a dramatic shift in the taxation of gambling, resulting in a substantial decline in taxes levied on U.K. bookmakers. Using data before and after this event, we present econometric evidence on the demand response to this tax reduction. Our results suggest that the demand for bookmaker gambling is highly sensitive to taxation rates and that the decline in the rate of taxation led to a large increase in the demand for on-shore betting. We also find some evidence of price-induced substitution across different segments of the gambling industry. The U.K. policy initiative may provide useful information for policy makers in other countries who are contemplating changes in gambling taxation.

Suggested Citation

  • David Paton & Donald S. Siegel & Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2003. "Taxation and the Demand for Gambling: New Evidence from the United Kingdom," Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics 0306, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:rpi:rpiwpe:0306

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Forrest, David & Gulley, O. David & Simmons, Robert, 2000. "Elasticity of Demand for UK National Lottery Tickets," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(4), pages 853-864, December.
    2. David Paton & Donald S. Siegel & Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2001. "Gambling Taxation: A Comment," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 34(4), pages 437-440.
    3. David Paton & Donald S. Siegel & Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2002. "A Policy Response To The E--Commerce Revolution: The Case Of Betting Taxation In The UK," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(480), pages 296-314, June.
    4. Gary C. Anders & Donald Siegel & Munther Yacoub, 1998. "Does Indian Casino Gambling Reduce State Revenues? Evidence From Arizona," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(3), pages 347-355, July.
    5. Forrest, David & Gulley, O. David & Simmons, Robert, 2000. "Elasticity of Demand for UK National Lottery Tickets," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 53(n. 4), pages 853-64, December.
    6. David Forrest & O. David Gulley & Robert Simmons, 2000. "Testing for rational expectations in the UK National Lottery," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 315-326.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Maschke Mario & Schmidt Ulrich, 2011. "Das Wettmonopol in Deutschland: Status quo und Reformansätze," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 60(1), pages 110-124, April.
    2. David Forrest, 2014. "Football and betting," Chapters,in: Handbook on the Economics of Professional Football, chapter 23, pages 383-400 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Hasret Benar & Glenn P. Jenkins, 2006. "Regulation and Taxation of Casinos under State-Monopoly, Private Monopoly and Casino Association Regimes," Working Papers 1056, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
    4. Hasret Benar & Glenn Jenkins, 2008. "The economics of casino taxation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 63-73.
    5. Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2014. "The Churchill Betting Tax, 1926-30: A historical and economic perspective," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 19(2), pages 21-38, September.
    6. Alessandro Pandimiglio & Marco Spallone, 2011. "L'elasticitˆ della domanda nel mercato italiano dei giochi: inquadramento generale ed analisi dei casi del lotto e del superenalotto," Working Papers CASMEF 1108, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    7. Gu, Xinhua & Tam, Pui Sun, 2014. "Tax incidence and price discrimination: An application of theories to gambling markets," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 135-151.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:rpi:rpiwpe:0306. 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: (Shawn Kantor). General contact details of provider: .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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.