Instant winners: Legal change in transition and the diffusion of state lotteries

Determinants of the probability and timing of commercial casino legalization in the United States

“…The other major study that is useful for us to consider is by Jackson et al (1994). This study addresses the same fundamental question as the Alm et al paper, except Jackson et al frame their question in the more general terms of legal change.…”

“…This finding, among others, helps to support the Jackson et al "legislature-as-interest-group" hypothesis for explaining policy changes. In fact, Jackson et al (1994) and Filer et al (1988) both argue that state legislators benefited from the adoption of lotteries. This assumption seems a reasonable starting point for explaining the adoption of commercial casinos.…”

“…As The hazard model only estimates a conditional probability that an event will occur, in our case casino legalization. Jackson et al (1994) and Filer et al (1988) demonstrate that the question of adoption is more than just the probability that a state legislature will adopt. These authors posit a theoretical model of the legislators as an interest group.…”

“…Among the papers that have examined lottery adoptions, the papers by Alm et al (1993) and Jackson et al (1994) are the most relevant to our study. Many of the other published studies adopt methodologies similar to those laid out in the Alm et al and Jackson et al papers; our review therefore focuses mainly on those two papers.…”

“…In order to answer both of these questions, a tobit analysis is the more appropriate specification for the theoretical analysis. 12 Therefore, we follow Jackson et al (1994) and use a tobit model. Filer et al (1988) estimate separate probit and tobit equations to address the issues of probability and timing of adoption.…”