Gaming; Gambling; Regulation; Responsive Regulation; Gaming Regulation


Administrative Law | Gaming Law | Law and Society

Document Type

Original Research Article


Gaming regulators are uniquely positioned state agents, who must consider contradictory goals in their day-to-day actions. They must protect the public (and maintain the legitimacy of government) but are also responsible for ensuring that the gaming industry provides needed revenue to the state. To that end, regulators are not only responsible for promoting the legitimacy of the government but also, to some extent, must consider how they can encourage the legitimization of a previously illegal behavior. Prior research has examined regulators’ attempts to balance such “structural contradictions” through their licensing process, but little research has been done on regulatory responses to licensee violations. The present review suggests that a transparent and “responsive” regulatory response to such violations would benefit regulators, the industry, and the public. I review the contradictions inherent in regulating the gaming industry, describe the “Responsive Regulation” approach, and then detail how “Responsive Regulation” could uniquely benefit gaming. I conclude with a call for more collaboration between regulators, practitioners (including industry participants), and academics.

Funding Sources

The data collection mentioned on page 12 was supported by a research fellowship from UNLV's International Gaming Institute's Center for Gaming Regulation (CGR). The CGR was not involved in design, collection, analysis, or reporting of the results.

Competing Interests

The author received funding from the Alberta Gambling Research Institute to attend their 2017 annual meeting as a presenter. The presentation was not related to the current manuscript.