Caught in the war against gambling: A critical analysis of law history and policy making in video games in Greece

The advent of the video game industry brought about new cultural policies in both the national and international levels. In particular, incentives and flexible funding programmes for the production of video games have become a key pillar of support for small, domestic, but also global game companies. In Greece, video game policy history has followed the developments and legal entanglements of gambling regulation, with serious national and international consequences. From the Royal Decree of 1971 to Law 3037/2002 that banned all games in public and private places until the most recent Law 4487/2017, which established a cash rebate scheme for audio-visual productions, this article aims to analyse Greece’s video game policy-making as captured through scattered laws, media articles and personal testimonies.

Citizens’ Perceptions of Gambling Regulation Systems: A New Meaning-Based Approach

This study fills a gap in gambling research by inquiring into the ways in which people make sense of their country’s gambling policy as a comprehensive logic with interrelated facets. Nineteen focus group interviews were conducted with 88 persons in Helsinki, Finland. The interview protocol involved discussion stimuli and tasks. The study participants expressed the view that the public image and function of gambling provision involves a great deal of contradictory elements. Even though the existing monopoly system was given approval in terms of yielding funding to good causes, the interviewees were still critical of how the monopoly system worked when it comes to advertising, availability, and customer loyalty programs. A core dilemma identified was whether the system aims to prevent gambling-related problems or whether it does, in fact, promote gambling consumption. If skilfully executed, the study method can be fruitful for discerning core logical inconsistencies in the gambling regulation systems of other countries as well.RésuméL’étude comble une lacune dans la recherche sur les jeux de hasard en s’interrogeant sur la manière dont les gens perçoivent la politique de jeu de leur pays en tant que modèle logique complet avec facettes interdépendantes. On a effectué dix-neuf entrevues dans des groupes de discussion regroupant 88 personnes à Helsinki, en Finlande. Le protocole d’entrevue comportait des points de discussion et des tâches. Les participants à l’étude ont exprimé l’opinion voulant que l’image publique et la fonction de l’offre de jeu comprennent beaucoup d’éléments contradictoires. Même si le système de monopole existant avait l’approbation du public en raison du soutien financier apporté à de bonnes causes, les personnes interrogées étaient tout de même critiques à l’égard du monopole et de son fonctionnement en ce qui concerne la publicité, l’offre et les programmes de fidélisation des clients. On a relevé un important dilemme, à savoir si le système visait à prévenir les problèmes de jeu ou s’il favorisait en fait la consommation de jeux. Habilement appliquée, la méthode d’étude peut servir à démontrer les incohérences logiques fondamentales dans les systèmes de réglementation de jeux de hasard d’autres pays également.

Eyes Down

Using legislation, case law, and official records (including Hansard), Chapter 2 outlines the early history of state intervention into bingo in England and Wales. The chapter traces the gradual liberalization of restrictions on small-scale gambling, and the subsequent backlash against bingo in the 1960s. It also tells a new story about gambling regulation and political economy. In particular, it excavates the key role of mutual aid to elite debates about the proper place of gambling in national life. Although many authors have argued that disavowal of gambling helped legitimize the forms of collective insurance developed by early friendly societies and similar associations, the chapter shows that gambling played a key role—as entertainment and mutual aid—within working men’s clubs, and that it was promoted by the state. This mutual aid dimension of gambling was heavily conflicted in gendered terms. Lawmakers were lobbied by bingo-organizing men, with women’s interests at least one step removed from Hansard. Unequal gender roles were hereby woven into dominant understandings of small-scale gambling.

Introduction to Part III

In Part II of the book I turned to the Hansard archive on bingo—a regrettably untapped scholarly source—to understand how lawmakers saw gambling within national visions of welfare, risk, and insurance. In the remainder of the book (Parts III and IV), I move on to explore how gambling regulation actually works—or fails to work—in practice. I am interested in how regulation feels; how it distributes benefits across gambling sectors; how it both shapes and reflects social relations (including class and gender relations); and how it has sometimes unintended material consequences....

Introduction

This Introduction identifies why bingo—a self-effacing game that is rarely taken seriously by academics—provides a vital new lens on debates about political economy and regulation. Within gambling studies, bingo practices can be used to further our understanding of mutual aid, of gambling law and policy, and of gendered gambling cultures. More broadly, bingo offers a lens through which we can see political economy and regulation differently. The Introduction summarizes this argument and provides an account of the three academic literatures—on diverse economies, regulation, and gender—to which the book seeks to contribute. It closes with a chapter-by-chapter overview. Finally, using two bingo prizes that reside in a domestic kitchen (a knife set, and a pair of mugs featuring Carry On characters that speak smutty catch phrases when lifted off a surface), the author also explains her personal investments in having the game—in all its ordinariness—taken more seriously in debates about the political economy of gambling regulation.