|
a tool of economic development—we are able to
explain broad patterns of casino legalization;
in the U.S.
we see casino legalization in depressed regions
of the South and in Atlantic City, but not in
the Sun Belt
or New York City.
The “economic desperation” thesis, however, is
not entirely satisfactory as an explanation.
First,
it does not account for variations across space
and time. Why have Indian2 reservations turned
to casino
gambling but not black inner cities? Why has
Detroit legalized casinos but not Cleveland? And
why did
numerous attempts to legalize casinos prior to
1989 fail (Dombrink and Thompson 1990), while
attempts
since have achieved great success? Second, it
cannot account for variations in how the
industry is
structured, and especially the presence of
American—primarily Nevadan—casino firms in all
these new
markets. And third, it provides no framework for
theorizing the casinos as physical sites
themselves—
i.e., as the intersection in real time and space
of, on the one hand, casino operators and, on
the other,
workers, consumers and the state. In sum, the
story of the emergence of a global gambling
industry is one
of a meeting between Western gambling
corporations seeking to expand into new markets
and local “third
world” states seeking outside investment for
economic development. Yet, I argue, because of
the
historical stigmatization of corporate casino
gambling, this is a problematic developmental
strategy for all
parties involved and one requiring considerable
“symbolic labor.”
Back to casino
news
|
