A Conservative Windfall

British economists Nattavudh Powdthavee and Andrew Oswald suggest two explanations for people's political attitudes: (1) they are the result of “deeply ethical views,” or (2) they are motivated by self-interest. Their study is relevant to the second possibility. They looked at the effect of winning the lottery on political attitudes.

Many previous studies have found that rich people are more conservative, but this is subject to different interpretations. Higher income could cause conservatism, conservatism could cause higher income, or they could both be jointly caused by some other variable, i.e., having wealthy parents. Studying lottery winners is an interesting idea because a lottery is a truly random assignment of people to the condition of being “rich.” Since the authors had data from before and after the win, they could look at its effect on political attitudes while holding individual differences constant.

The data came from the British Household Panel Survey, an ongoing study in which the same people are contacted every year. Between 1996 and 2009, 4277 different people reported winning the British National Lottery 9003 times. 94.65% of these were small wins of less than £500 (as of this writing, $820). The remaining 5.35% were over £500 and were considered big wins. (The biggest win was £185,000. Unfortunately, they do not report an average.) Winners were compared to people who had no lottery winnings, either because they did not play or played and lost.

All respondents were asked which political party they favored. Only supporters of the Conservative and Labour parties were included in the analysis, since these parties are clearly right and left leaning. (The authors classify the Liberal Democrats as a centrist party.)  Participants were also asked to locate themselves on a 7-point scale, from a strong supporter of the Labour Party to a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. The scale measured changes in attitude strength regardless of whether the participant changed parties. These data were statistically corrected for prior household income and 12 other control variables.

By comparing the participants' answers to those of the year before, it was possible to identify people who had switched from favoring some other party (or none at all) to favoring either the Labour or Conservative parties in the year of the win. 

Approximately 13% of the non-winners switched to the Conservative Party that year, along with 14% of the small winners and 18% of the big winners. The data from the 7-point scale were consistent with these findings, showing that the greater the winnings, the greater the conservative shift. For unknown reasons, the conservative shift among winners was greater for men than for women. 

Since each lottery winner's political leanings were measured before and after their windfall, this design goes a long way toward controlling alternative explanations. However, there is a problem. It's possible that people who play the lottery are not representative of the population. For example, in the US, the lottery functions as a regressive tax, since low income people spend more per capita. In addition, men, middle-aged (45-64) people, and people with less education play more. In defense of the representativeness of their sample, the authors note that 57% of UK citizens play the lottery at least once in a given year. However, they had no measure of how often each person played. Since the more often you play, the greater your chance of winning, the big winners were probably people who played regularly.

My guess is that winning the lottery sensitizes people to the tax consequences of winning. The British income tax is more progressive than ours, and Conservative Party propaganda emphasizes keeping taxes low. People who play the lottery often may differ from non-players in a way that makes them more susceptible to a conservative change. Maybe they are particularly sensitive to variations in their income.

This is not the first study to look at the relationship between wealth and self-interest. Several American studies have found that higher income people are less helpful and more likely to cheat or engage in unethical behavior.

You may also be interested in reading:

Me First

Class Acts

Bending the Curve

Killer Kane

Here's a description of the 1939 movie serial Buck Rogers which often ran on New York television when I was younger.

A pilot [Buck Rogers] and his young passenger crash-land on a mountaintop and are put into suspended animation by a strange gas. They awake 500 years later to discover that the Earth is now ruled by a tyrannical despot called Killer Kane, and they lead a fight to overthrow him.

After only a month in office, Pennsylvania's new Democrat Attorney General Kathleen Kane is giving Republican Governor Tom Corbett a bad case of hemorrhoids. First, she negotiated an agreement with Florida to close the “Florida loophole,” which had allowed Pennsylvanians who were denied permits to carry concealed weapons to obtain them from Florida. Then she announced the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Corbett's handling of the Jerry Sandusky case while he was Attorney General. Critics have alleged that Corbett delayed prosecuting Sandusky until after he was elected Governor in order to avoid a backlash from Penn State football fans. On Thursday, she thwarted Corbett's plan to privatize the state lottery by invalidating his agreement to turn over its management to Camelot, a British firm.

Camelot had pledged to bring the state $34 billion in revenue in 20 years, largely by allowing internet gambling and introducing the game of keno, a lottery-type game sometimes referred to as “bingo on steroids.” But the state lottery, now managed by state employees, made over $1 billion in profit last year, so the guaranteed gain in revenue under the Camelot contract is only 70%. Couldn't the current lottery employees bring in that much extra revenue if they were allowed to offer keno? For its part, Camelot celebrated the new deal by opening its U. S. corporate headquarters in Delaware to ensure that it would not have to pay Pennsylvania income tax.

Ms. Kane gave three reasons for declaring the Camelot contract illegal:

• Signing the contract was “an unlawful extension of executive authority” by the Governor.
• The state law which created the lottery does not authorize the development of “monitor-based games such as keno.” A monitor-based game is one which is played at a computer terminal and does not require human intervention.
• A provision by which the state is required to compensate Camelot for “indirect expenses” is too broad and undefined.
  
  

It's hard to predict how this will be resolved. It may depend on the court's interpretation of statutory language. Kane's second reason resonated most strongly with me. This seems to be a substantial escalation in the state's ability to take advantage of its citizens. The plan is to put computer gambling terminals in bars, restaurants and convenience stores all over Pennsylvania. This differs from present casino gaming since you don't have to go to a casino; you can play at the corner store. It differs from the lottery in that you can play almost continually, rather than the current twice a day. And most importantly, it's keno, a game which has proven popular and addictive.

While the rules governing keno in Pennsylvania have not been announced, in Maryland, the house edge in keno—the extent to which the odds favor the state—is 42.5%. The expected value of a dollar spent on keno is $1 minus the house edge, or 57.5 cents. This can be compared to a house edge of 15% for slot machines, 5.26% for roulette, and only .46% for video poker.

Current state lotteries also offer very poor odds for the player. They pay out about 55% in prizes—very similar to keno. Operating expenses consume 12% of the funds, and the remaining 33% go to the state. Clotfelter and Cook, whose book, Selling Hope, is the definitive work on state lotteries, refer to this 33% as an implicit tax, since it is essentially a tax on playing the game. It is higher by percentage than state taxes on liquor and cigarettes.

If the odds of winning are bad, why are lotteries so popular? One theory is that people who should know better treat games of chance as if the outcome were partially determined by skill, and fall victim to an illusion of control over their outcomes. Another theory is that people have difficulty calculating their odds, but advertising showing happy winners encourages them to visualize being a winner. Since the availability of winning is increased, people overestimate its likelihood. However, the most important attraction of keno may be large prizes. Studies of multistate lotteries have shown that participation goes up as the jackpot increases.

Who plays the lottery? Surveys show that about 60% of adults in lottery states play, spending an average of $75 a year. But 5% of citizens account for 54% of total sales and spend almost $4000 a year, suggesting that gambling addicts disproportionately support the system. Expansion of gambling will increase the need for state services to help these people and their families. Men are more likely to gamble than women. As education goes up, gambling goes down. Most importantly, studies consistently show that lower-income people spend a higher percentage of their income on state lotteries than middle class or rich people. Therefore, gambling is a regressive tax, a tax that increases the already large disparity between the rich and the poor.

State lottery profits are often earmarked for specific purposes, such as education, or, in Pennsylvania, services for senior citizens. This can be a way of manipulating the public to accept a policy they might otherwise question. For example, when Governor Corbett announced the Camelot agreement he said that expansion of gambling was necessary because in 17 years, one in four Pennsylvanians will be over 60, and the state needs a larger and more reliable funding stream for them.

However, Clotfelter and Cook have found that earmarking lottery funds for a specific purpose seldom results in any change in the amount of money the state actually spends for that purpose. If the lottery brings in more money than anticipated, the money goes into the state's general fund, rather than providing a windfall for education, senior citizens, or whatever the earmark is. However, there is a potential danger should lottery proceeds be lower than expected, since it may give the state legislature an excuse to cut back on spending for the earmarked purpose.

I have no moral objection to gambling. However, most theories of government propose that the state has a responsibility to make its citizens' lives better. It's hard for me to see the Camelot contract as fulfilling that purpose. Maybe Killer Kane is doing us all a favor.