Wardle, H. , Reith, G. , Dobbie, F., Rintoul, A. and Shiffman, J. (2021) Regulatory resistance? Narratives and uses of evidence around “black market” provision of gambling during the British Gambling Act Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11566. (doi: 10.3390/ijerph182111566) (PMID:34770077) (PMCID:PMC8582964)
![[img]](https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
252141.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. 1MB |
Abstract
Commercial gambling is increasingly viewed as being part of the unhealthy commodities industries, in which products contribute to preventable ill-health globally. Britain has one of the world’s most liberal gambling markets, meaning that the regulatory changes there have implications for developments elsewhere. A review of the British Gambling Act 2005 is underway. This has generated a range of actions by the industry, including mobilising arguments around the threat of the “black market”. We critically explore industry’s framing of these issues as part of their strategy to resist regulatory change during the Gambling Act review. We used a predefined review protocol to explore industry narratives about the “black market” in media reports published between 8 December 2020 and 26 May 2021. Fifty-five articles were identified and reviewed, and themes were narratively synthesised to examine industry framing of the “black market”. The black market was framed in terms of economic threat and loss, and a direct connection was made between its growth and increased regulation. The articles mainly presented gambling industry perspectives uncritically, citing industry-generated evidence (n = 40). Industry narratives around the “black market” speak to economically and emotionally salient concerns: fear, safety, consumer freedom and economic growth. This dominant framing in political, mainstream and industry media may influence political and public opinion to support the current status quo: “protecting” the existing regulated market rather than “protecting” people. Debates should be reframed to consider all policy options, especially those designed to protect public health.
| Item Type: | Articles |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | This work was funded through a Wellcome Humanities and Social Science Fellowship to HW (200306/Z/15/Z). |
| Status: | Published |
| Refereed: | Yes |
| Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: | Wardle, Dr Heather and Dobbie, Ms Fiona and Reith, Professor Gerda |
| Creator Roles: | Wardle, H.Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Visualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition Reith, G.Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing Dobbie, F.Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review and editing |
| Authors: | Wardle, H., Reith, G., Dobbie, F., Rintoul, A., and Shiffman, J. |
| College/School: | College of Social Sciences > School of Social and Political Sciences College of Social Sciences > School of Social and Political Sciences > Sociology Anthropology and Applied Social Sciences |
| Journal Name: | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |
| Publisher: | MDPI |
| ISSN: | 1661-7827 |
| ISSN (Online): | 1660-4601 |
| Published Online: | 03 November 2021 |
| Copyright Holders: | Copyright © 2021 The Authors |
| First Published: | First published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(21):11566 |
| Publisher Policy: | Reproduced under a Creative Commons License |
University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record
Funder and Project Information
Funder and Project Information