BOOK REVIEW 395

Book rEviEw
The Gambling Establishment. Challenging the Power of
the Modern Gambling Industry and Its Allies, by Jim Orford
London & New York: Routledge. 2020. 194 pages. $39.95 (Paperback).

J IM ORFORD PROVIDES a powerful manifesto for

reframing gambling research and policy. As one of the
leading figures in addiction and gambling research, he pro-
vides ample evidence as well as years of personal insight and
experience to substantiate his claims.
Historically, regulation has oscillated between the liber-
alization and the limitation of gambling. Orford identifies at
the beginning of his book that, after the massive growth of
the gambling sector during the last few decades, the tide has
turned toward greater restrictions and a more critical stance
toward a liberalized gambling market. Nevertheless, Orford
considers the Gambling Establishment as strong enough to
push back against this tide, and his book thus crucially lays
out the intellectual foundations by which to withstand the
Gambling Establishment’s actions.
The Gambling Establishment, central to Orford’s ar-
gumentation, is defined and discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 2. It comprises not only the gambling industry but
also certain government bodies, beneficiaries (e.g., charities
receiving funds from gambling), and help-service providers,
as well as academics.
Orford presents the Gambling Establishment’s discursive
strategies in the third chapter. The “harmless entertainment”
discourse claims that gambling constitutes an innocuous
past-time activity, offering harm to only a small minority of
the population. In the “ordinary business” discourse, gam-
bling becomes a typical commodity sold by “ordinary” com-
panies. Consequently, gambling as a product might require
descriptive product information but shouldn’t otherwise be
unnecessarily restricted.
The third discourse concerns “social and cultural ben-
efits,” that is, the alleged positive impact of gambling on the
economy and in creating revenue streams used for charitable in the main research paradigm, one has to thank Orford for
causes. The fourth discourse, “freedom to choose” discourse, discussing them in his book with such clarity, as well as in
reverts to an idea of the industrious and autonomous indi- showing their inherent flaws.
vidual, who should not be restrained in terms of the choices After setting the scene, Orford establishes his case
they make. Last, the fifth discourse places the individual’s in Chapters 4 to 7. These chapters are research reviews
responsibility to gamble sensibly center stage; thus, this dis- concerning the excessive and irresponsible advertising of
course is named the “personal responsibility” discourse. As gambling (Chapter 4), the deception of gamblers through
the agenda and tactics of the Gambling Establishment remain game design or misleading representations of gambling odds
hidden in everyday politics and have been taken for granted (Chapter 5), the harm for individual gamblers (i.e., gambling

395
396 JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS / MAY 2020
addiction; Chapter 6), and gambling’s harm to others and the
larger society (Chapter 7).
Because of the relative short length of the book itself,
these chapters remain quite brief and might not introduce
much novel content for persons already familiar with the lit-
erature. Still, I understand that raising these topics is neces-
sary for understanding Orford’s argumentation; the chapters
are also a valuable repository of key references concerning
the respective topics. In addition, I want to highlight the mat-
ter of self-exclusion, which Orford uses skillfully (Chapter 6)
to prove that even the Gambling Establishment in truth con-
siders gambling a non-ordinary commodity; no one would,
after all, suggest a self-exclusion program in ordinary com-
modity establishments, such as clothing or hardware stores.
From the perspective of research, the eighth chapter de-
mands special attention. Here, Orford demonstrates how the
Gambling Establishment works in influencing research in
its own interests. He clarifies the matter of bias and explains
that pointing out conflicts of interest are seldom a critique of
flawed quality or skewed interpretations within the research
produced by the extensive amount of industry funding given
to established addiction researchers. Instead, the bias occurs
in the constriction of research questions and aims, as these
are bound to the research frame. Implications of research can
also be biased, when more industry-friendly results are high-
lighted in executive summaries or abstracts at the expense of
more critical findings.
The last chapter summarizes Orford’s manifesto for future
gambling regulations, and one can only applaud him for pro-
viding a clear list of precise proposals. These all culminate
in Orford’s overarching proposition to frame gambling in a
public health discourse.
Although it would be naive not to expect the actors
described in the Gambling Establishment to be working
together strategically to promote gambling, the use of actor-
centered terminology and language in parts of Orford’s
book risks inviting the misinterpretation that there might
be a grand conspiracy behind the growth of big gambling.
The book’s cover photo endorses, for example, this exact
interpretation. Instead of this, I suggest that societal theories
conceptualizing actors as embedded in structures would have
further improved the argument produced. In fact, under such
a perspective, one could argue that the recent wave of gam-
bling liberalization happened at the same time that a general
shift in governance toward more liberal stances (often termed
neo-liberalism) also took place. After the financial crisis of
2008, there has been a revival of discourses around welfare
and the involvement of the state in the economy as once
again a viable option.
I also consider it a pity that the book addresses online
gambling only briefly. It is a missed chance not to have also
debunked what I would call the “Online gambling is uncon-
trollable” discourse. Industry representatives regularly evoke
it to demand liberalized legal online gambling to curb illegal/
unregulated and “irresponsible” gambling offers. If and how
such a channeling to legal gambling providers would happen
(or if legal providers are in fact more responsible) remains an
open question, as is the claim that online gambling would be
per se impossible to control.
As a Finnish researcher, I could not overlook the fact that
the information on Finnish regulation is outdated (Chapter
2). Since 2017, there is only one gambling monopoly (Veik-
kaus) left to legally offer all types of gambling in (mainland)
Finland.
The book is an overdue and welcome synopsis on the
shortcomings of current gambling regulations, research, and
framing. It also gives a clear message on how to overcome
these. I highly recommended the book to academics, policy
makers, regulators, representatives of the civil society, and
all others interested in a genuine understanding of (problem)
gambling.
Michael eGerer, Dr. Soc. Sc.a,*
aCentre for Research on Addiction, Control,
and Governance (CEACG),
Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
*michael.egerer@helsinki.fi
Conflict-of-Interest Statement
Michael Egerer is currently funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social
Affairs and Health (Project: The Public Image and Function of Gambling
Provision in Finland: Scrutinizing a Policy System), as well as by the Eu-
ropean Research Area Network NEURON (Project: Addiction in the Brain:
Ethically Sound Implementation in Governance).
Egerer has, during the last 3 years, received funding from the Finnish
Foundation for Alcohol Studies based on §52 of the Finnish Lotteries Act
to support conference travel. Egerer’s funding by the Finnish Ministry of
Social Affairs and Health is also within the objectives of §52 of the Finnish
Lotteries Act. The funds based on §52 stem from a mandatory levy on the
Finnish gambling monopoly to support research and treatment. The Finnish
Ministry decides on the funding of research on gambling harms and bills
these expenses to the Finnish gambling monopoly. The monopoly has no
influence on how the money is distributed. Neither the Ministry, the Finnish
Foundation for Alcohol Studies, nor the gambling monopoly poses restric-
tions on publications.