File(s) under permanent embargo
Construction and regulation of “dangerous consumptions” : re-regulating state casino capitalism - an Australian regulatory case study
This paper explores insights into the regulatory state and state capitalism through the lens of how states construct and regulate markets in the area of ‘dangerous consumptions’, in particular, land-based casino gambling. It focuses on what is needed for public interest regulation; with a focus on consumer protection and harm prevention. Gambling constitutes a site of explicit state regulation as the state decides and negotiates license-to-operate conditions along with the degree of significance accorded to impact/harm, regulatory monitoring and enforcement, harm prevention and state/operator duty of care...
This paper outlines conceptualization of gambling as a ‘dangerous consumption’. Secondly, it examines the dominant regulatory paradigm responsive regulation (RR) and adequacy of RR as conceptual framework for the challenges posed by gambling as a ‘dangerous consumption’. Thirdly, it draws on a regulatory case study of RR in practice, drawing on a multi method approach to regulation of an Australian land-based casino [Victoria’s monopoly Crown Casino]. It concludes that current use of RR is inadequate to the task and argues for alternatives principles and public health approach as in the OECD hazard avoidance model applied to chemical accidents. This prioritizes prevention, preparedness [for risk/harm eventualities] and response [enforcement] and points to the need for a more nuanced response to the regulation of dangerous consumptions that directly addresses public interest.
This paper outlines conceptualization of gambling as a ‘dangerous consumption’. Secondly, it examines the dominant regulatory paradigm responsive regulation (RR) and adequacy of RR as conceptual framework for the challenges posed by gambling as a ‘dangerous consumption’. Thirdly, it draws on a regulatory case study of RR in practice, drawing on a multi method approach to regulation of an Australian land-based casino [Victoria’s monopoly Crown Casino]. It concludes that current use of RR is inadequate to the task and argues for alternatives principles and public health approach as in the OECD hazard avoidance model applied to chemical accidents. This prioritizes prevention, preparedness [for risk/harm eventualities] and response [enforcement] and points to the need for a more nuanced response to the regulation of dangerous consumptions that directly addresses public interest.
