As state governments establish and expand lotteries, debate shifts from whether such enterprises are desirable in general to more specific features of their operations. These include the targeting of poorer individuals, alleged regressive impacts on lower-income groups, and more generally the role of the lottery as an industry that promotes gambling rather than a government service. These issues arise not only because lottery marketing is necessarily focused on persuading targeted groups to spend money on the game, but also because the evolution of lottery policies is driven by the need to maximize revenues and by the pressure of competition from other gambling industries that are growing rapidly.
Most states have adopted the lottery as a source of “painless” revenue, arguing that players voluntarily spend their money and in return receive state benefits. This argument is especially effective in times of economic stress, when voters are anxious about tax increases or cuts to public services and lotteries offer an alternative that promises painless revenue. But studies show that the public welfare benefits of lotteries are generally minimal and state governments often end up with a dependency on lottery revenues they can do little to change.
One of the main issues is that lotteries target irrational populations. A purely rational population would correctly calculate the expected value of participating and reduce their willingness to do so, but instead lottery participants have been lured by the possibility of big jackpots that are often advertised on billboards and other media. These irrational gamblers can be seen as the real audience of lotteries, and their behavior is a perfect example of the kind of irrationality that underlies most casino gaming.
The other major issue is that lotteries are a classic case of policy being made in piecemeal and incremental ways, with few opportunities for the overall welfare to be considered. When a lottery is established, the policy decision is typically made by state legislatures and executive branches that have only limited control over the operation. The resulting policy is then subject to an ongoing evolutionary process that may or may not take into account the overall welfare. It is therefore very difficult to know whether the lottery is meeting the public’s needs and expectations, or whether it is simply being run as a business with its own objectives and priorities.
The short story The Lottery by Shirley Jackson depicts the evil of the lottery in a rural American village. The lottery is led by Mr. Summers, the village lottery administrator, and his assistant Mr. Graves, who prefigures the corrupt and iniquitous nature of ordinary people. The characterization of the two men is important because it reinforces the theme that lottery is not only bad for society, but for individuals as well. The story demonstrates how the lottery is used as a way to justify the iniquitous and greedy ways of ordinary people, as demonstrated by the fact that it is an accepted practice in the village.