Version 3 2022-07-06, 04:26Version 3 2022-07-06, 04:26
Version 2 2019-12-12, 22:44Version 2 2019-12-12, 22:44
Version 1 2017-04-04, 01:08Version 1 2017-04-04, 01:08
thesis
posted on 2022-07-06, 04:26authored byAndrew Manning
This study is
about understanding how public policy is made. This is done through the lens of
the political economy of gambling in the State of Victoria, Australia. The
study critically evaluates a body of information relating to the introduction
of poker machines in licensed clubs and hotels throughout Victoria between 1991
and 2002. Poker machines were introduced in Victoria in 1991. By 2002 gamblers
were losing over $2.33 billion annually on poker machines. The gambling
industry and the State Government of Victoria receive significant dividends
from the poker machine largesse. Poker machine taxes contribute over ten per
cent of state budget income. Making money from poker machines was vigorously
pursued by government and industry. As losses from gamblers reached new heights
year upon year, civil society and apolitical interests pondered how to confront
the rise in problem gambling by influencing changes to gambling policy.
A number of key government policy decisions were made between
1991 and 2002. This research seeks to understand how those decisions came into
being. The social and political sciences provide the theoretical framework with
which to assess the impact of elites and stakeholders on decisions. Drawing on
publicly available data, including ABS statistics, available club data, and
media reports, the study seeks to understand public policy making and the range
of theorising that this has generated. The publicly available evidence on poker
machines is examined so as to identity processes and gaps in policy theory in
relation to policy making.
This study demonstrates policy making operates simultaneously
on two levels. One is the illusion of policy making promoted by dominant
elites; the other is the reality of how meaningful public policy is made. Both
realms involve engagement in conversations, interactions and decision making.
This study draws attention to a third layer of engagement that is generally
hidden from formal public view, scrutiny or accountability. The challenge for
stakeholders who participate in the policy process is to know which environment
they are engaging in at any given time, what objectives are likely to dominate
debate and as a consequence, how those deemed as less powerful stakeholders
could influence the formation of dominant stakeholder policy objectives. The
research findings contribute to developing recommendations for strengthening
theoretical approaches to understanding how public policy is made.