The Globe's reporting about Predatory Gambling has been mostly disappointing with few exceptions!
My response to the Boston Globe "takedown" of the substitutability of lotteries and casinos (i.e., will casinos draw money away from the lottery):
Which source will I trust – "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Gambling" published by the Oxford University Press.... Or a short piece in the Boston Globe that does nothing serious to study the actual effects. I'll go with OUP.
The two pages of the OUP aggregates studies on the substitutability of casino gambling and lotteries (among others). It finds that casinos and lotteries are in fact substitutes. They're not complementary. As this is a peer-reviewed book published by one of the most prestigious academic presses in the country, I am going to take it far more seriously than what is more or less a fluff piece. There is no real analysis here whatsoever – simply random claims attached to random numbers at random years. There is no methodological consistency; there is no aggregation of data; there is more or less nothing here at all. If you claim to have undertaken an analysis, it might help to actually show what you analyzed. I see absolutely nothing here. In terms of "experts," I see one. One.
There is growing interest among academics and...
An editor came to his or her senses this AM and changed that atrociously misleading headline. It still doesn't eliminate the problems with the article itself.