1. Business

NO GAME LICENSE SYSTEM GOLD STANDARD

Disclaimer: This is a user generated content submitted by a member of the WriteUpCafe Community. The views and writings here reflect that of the author and not of WriteUpCafe. If you have any complaints regarding this post kindly report it to us.

There is no “gold standard” for how games are regulated in different jurisdictions, regardless of the legal system in place. This is the conclusion of a paper published in the latest issue of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Journal of Game Law. 경마

An article titled “Comparison of game regulatory systems in civil and common law countries: how different approaches can achieve the same policy objectives,” written by Anthony Cabot, Antonio Robo Bibla and Pedro Cortes.

Mr. Cabot is a prominent researcher who specializes in game law at the UNLV Boyd School of Law and directs the game law program. Mr. Vavicla is a gaming lawyer and author of “Macau Gaming Law – Annotating,” and Mr. Cortés leads gaming practice as a managing partner for Macau-based law firms Rato, Ling, Lei & Cortés.

This paper compares the authors' two main approaches to game regulation: command and control, such as Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, with the concession model in place in the special administrative district of Macau, China.

The article concludes that “no model is essentially superior.” The authors say both models have been “used for success and failure” and each has “benefits and disadvantages.”

The authors pointed out, “Countries with significant casino industries, such as Monaco and France, are making concessions rather than licensing and have faced some problems.” In the United States, “the rigidity of the command-control model, by contrast, may have contributed to Atlantic City's initial failure.”

While the concession model allows governments to customize “regulatory oversight of the advantages and disadvantages of concession holders as well as the situation of jurisdiction,” it also has drawbacks “if jurisdiction has multiple casinos in a competitive market.”

“But both systems address the key components of game regulation: conformity, auditing/accounting and enforcement. The process is just different,” the authors wrote.

According to the article, the comparison of game regulatory systems “is disproportionately focused on processes rather than results.”

“The command and control system can be superior depending on the situation, such as an open market with numerous competitors, but there are clear advantages, such as concessions in places where land is scarce and short-term concessions by the government due to long-term economic uncertainty.”

The paper also suggested that “the idea that command and control models are gold-based is wrong and often counterproductive.”

“In fact, Nevada's experience in command and control regulation has an over-emphasized impact because it has successfully shifted from organized crime to corporate control,” the article said.

It added: “This trend of widespread command control has led to unsustainable claims of the ‘gold standard' and criticism that other processes, such as concessions, are inferior simply because they lack a large amount of uniform duty control.”

The authors also stated that “one process may have advantages in certain situations, but neither is inherently superior outside the context in which they are used.”

“Good game regulation should strive to meet four fundamental principles: effectiveness (met policy goals), efficiency (lowest economic impact and management costs), equity (equally distributing the burden among players), and political acceptability.”

Login

Welcome to WriteUpCafe Community

Join our community to engage with fellow bloggers and increase the visibility of your blog.
Join WriteUpCafe