IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkie/32848.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Das Wettmonopol in Deutschland: Status Quo und Reformansätze

Author

Listed:
  • Maschke, Mario
  • Schmidt, Ulrich

Abstract

This paper focuses on the legal monopoly for sporting bets in Germany. We analyze the pricing behavior of the monopolist ODDSET and find that typical pricing inefficiencies on betting markets are reinforced under the monopoly. This result in conjunction with the decreasing tax revenue may motivate a liberalization of betting markets in Germany. We consider several tax designs for a liberalized market and favor gross earnings as tax base.

Suggested Citation

  • Maschke, Mario & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2010. "Das Wettmonopol in Deutschland: Status Quo und Reformansätze," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 32848, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkie:32848
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/32848/1/627355374.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Delipalla, Sofia & Keen, Michael, 1992. "The comparison between ad valorem and specific taxation under imperfect competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 351-367, December.
    2. Russell Sobel & S. Travis Raines, 2003. "An examination of the empirical derivatives of the favourite-longshot bias in racetrack betting," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 371-385.
    3. Ioannis Asimakopoulos & John Goddard, 2004. "Forecasting football results and the efficiency of fixed-odds betting," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(1), pages 51-66.
    4. 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.
    5. Bruno Jullien & Bernard Salanie, 2000. "Estimating Preferences under Risk: The Case of Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 503-530, June.
    6. Paton, David & Siegel, Donald S. & Williams, Leighton Vaughan, 2004. "Taxation and the Demand for Gambling: New Evidence From the United Kingdom," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 57(4), pages 847-861, December.
    7. repec:lan:wpaper:3216 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Lars Hornuf & Günter Britschkat & Robert Lechner & Gernot Nerb, 2006. "Auswirkungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichtsurteils zum Sportwettmarkt auf die deutsche Volkswirtschaft," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 32, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Martin Weitzman, 2008. "Utility Analysis And Group Behavior An Empirical Study," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets, chapter 9, pages 47-55 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Les Coleman, 2004. "New light on the longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 315-326.
    12. Williams, Leighton Vaughan & Paton, David, 1997. "Why Is There a Favourite-Longshot Bias in British Racetrack Betting Markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(440), pages 150-158, January.
    13. M Cain & D Law & D Peel, 2005. "Cumulative prospect theory and gambling," Working Papers 566823, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    14. Cain, Michael & Law, David & Peel, David, 2000. "The Favourite-Longshot Bias and Market Efficiency in UK Football Betting," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(1), pages 25-36, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    17. Hurley, William & McDonough, Lawrence, 1995. "A Note on the Hayek Hypothesis and the Favorite-Longshot Bias in Parimutuel Betting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 949-955, September.
    18. repec:lan:wpaper:3582 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Pope, Peter F & Peel, David A, 1989. "Information, Prices and Efficiency in a Fixed-Odds Betting Market," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 56(223), pages 323-341, August.
    20. Snyder, Wayne W, 1978. "Horse Racing: Testing the Efficient Markets Model," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 33(4), pages 1109-1118, September.
    21. Fama, Eugene F, 1970. "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 383-417, May.
    22. repec:lan:wpaper:3312 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Tim Kuypers, 2000. "Information and efficiency: an empirical study of a fixed odds betting market," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(11), pages 1353-1363.
    24. Michael A. Smith & David Paton & Leighton Vaughan-Williams, 2004. "Costs, biases and betting markets: new evidence," Working Papers 2004/5, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham Business School, Economics Division.
    25. repec:lan:wpaper:3214 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Schmidt Ulrich & Miranda Katharina Lima de, 2013. "Regulierung des Glücksspiels in Deutschland: Das Glücksspielgesetz Schleswig-Holsteins und der Glücksspieländerungsstaatsvertrag aus ökonomischer Perspektive," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 62(1), pages 82-94, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading

    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:zbw:ifwkie:32848. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    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.