Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Finance Review
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ghent, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by Grant, A. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Are Voting and Buying Behavior Consistent? Evidence from the South Carolina Education Lottery

Linda S. Ghent

Eastern Illinois University, Charleston

Alan P. Grant

Eastern Illinois University, Charleston

This article uses voting and sales data from the South Carolina Education Lottery to test whether the vote for a new lottery is driven by latent demand for lottery products or whether it reflects free-riding behavior or other public finance considerations. Including the predicted component of the lottery vote adds no explanatory power to a lottery sales regression. Given the dissimilarity of coefficients between vote and sales regressions, we conclude that there are significant differences in individuals' voting and buying behaviors. We find that the lottery vote is significantly higher in counties with underperforming schools and in counties along the state's borders, where cross-border shopping is an issue. We conclude that much of the variation in the vote is driven by these public finance issues. Finally, we discover that creation of the South Carolina lottery drew substantial revenues from North Carolina shoppers and stemmed an outflow of revenue to Georgia.

Key Words: lottery • voting behavior • cross-border shopping

References

  • Alm, James, Michael McKee, and Mark Skidmore. 1993. Fiscal pressure, tax competition, and the introduction of state lotteries. National Tax Journal 46 (4): 463-76.
  • Association of Religion Data Archives. 2006. The ARDA. http://www.thearda.com (accessed February 19, 2006).
  • Caudill, Steven B., Jon M. Ford, Franklin G. Mixon Jr., and Ter Chao Peng. 1995. A discrete-time hazard model of lottery adoption. Applied Economics 27 (6): 555-61.[CrossRef]
  • Clotfelter, Charles T. 1979. On the regressivity of state-operated numbers games. National Tax Journal 32 (4): 543-47.
  • ———. 2000. Do lotteries hurt the poor? Well, yes and no. Summary of testimony given to the House Select Committee on a State Lottery, April 28. http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/news/newsletters/dpn/summer00/lottery.html (accessed February 19, 2007).
  • Clotfelter, Charles T., and Philip J. Cook. 1987. Implicit taxation in lottery finance. National Tax Journal 40 (4): 533-46.
  • ———. 1990. On the economics of state lotteries. Journal of Economic Perspectives 4 (4): 105-19.
  • Ellison, Christopher G., and Kathleen A. Nybroten. 1999. Conservative Protestantism and opposition to state-sponsored lotteries: Evidence from the 1997 Texas poll. Social Science Quarterly 80 (2): 356-69.
  • Erekson, O. Homer, Glenn Platt, Christopher Whistler, and Andrea L. Ziegert. 1999. Factors influencing the adoption of state lotteries. Applied Economics 31 (7): 875-84.[CrossRef]
  • Filer, John E., Donald L. Moak, and Barry Uze. 1988. Why some states adopt lotteries and others don't. Public Finance Quarterly 16 (3): 259-83.
  • Garrett, Thomas A., and Thomas L. Marsh. 2002. The revenue impacts of cross-border lottery shopping in the presence of spatial autocorrelation. Regional Science and Urban Economics 32 (4): 501-19.[CrossRef]
  • Garrett, Thomas A., and Russell S. Sobel. 2004. State lottery revenue: The importance of game characteristics. Public Finance Review 32 (3): 313-30.[Abstract]
  • Giacopassi, David, Mark W. Nichols, and B. Grant Stitt. 2006. Voting for a lottery. Public Finance Review 34 (1): 80-100.[Abstract]
  • Greene, William. 2000. Econometric analysis, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47 (1): 153-61.[CrossRef]
  • Hersch, Philip L., and Gerald S. McDougall. 1989. Do people put their money where their votes are? The case of lottery tickets. Southern Economic Journal 56 (1): 32-38.[CrossRef]
  • Jackson, Raymond. 1994. Demand for lottery products in Massachusetts. Journal of Consumer Affairs 28 (2): 313-25.
  • Martin, Robert, and Bruce Yandle. 1990. State lotteries as duopoly transfer mechanisms. Public Choice 64 (3): 253-64.[CrossRef]
  • Mixon, Franklin G., Jr., Steven B. Caudill, Jon M. Ford, and Ter Chao Peng. 1997. The rise (or fall) of lottery adoption within the logic of collective action: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Economics and Finance 21 (1): 43-49.
  • Price, Donald I., and E. Shawn Novak. 1999. The tax incidence of three Texas lottery games: Regressivity, race, and education. National Tax Journal 52 (4): 741-51.
  • ———. 2000. The income redistribution effects of Texas State Lottery games. Public Finance Review 28 (1): 82-92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Rubenstein, Ross, and Benjamin Scafidi. 2002. Who pays and who benefits? Examining the distributional consequences of the Georgia Lottery for Education. National Tax Journal 55 (2): 223-38.
  • Scott, Frank, and John Garen. 1994. Probability of purchase, amount of purchase, and the demographic incidence of the lottery tax. Journal of Public Economics 54 (1): 121-43.[CrossRef]
  • South Carolina Department of Education. 2006. South Carolina Department of Education: Together, we can. http://ed.sc.gov/ (accessed February 19, 2006).
  • South Carolina Education Lottery. 2005. South Carolina Education Lottery. http://www.sceducationlottery.com (accessed February 19, 2006).
  • South Carolina Election Commission. N.d. South Carolina Election Commission. http://www.state.sc.us/scsec/ (accessed February 19, 2006).
  • Stover, Mark E. 1990. Contiguous state lotteries: Substitutes or complements? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 9 (4): 565-68.[CrossRef]
  • U.S. Bureau of the Census. N.d. http://www.census.gov (accessed February 19, 2006).

Public Finance Review, Vol. 35, No. 6, 669-688 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1091142107299602
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ghent, L. S.
Right arrow Articles by Grant, A. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?