177% up to 5BTC + 77 Free Spins!
New players only. Exclusive Welcome Bonus of 177% + 77 Free Spins
A new insight into global gaming regulation shows that there isn’t really a universally acknowledged “gold standard”. This finding is highlighted in captivating research published in the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) Gaming Law Journal.
Penned by three eminent figures, Anthony Cabot, António Lobo Vilela, and Pedro Cortés, the paper brings together unique perspectives. Cabot, a distinguished fellow of Gaming Law at UNLV’s Boyd School of Law, leads the gaming law programme. Vilela, a gaming lawyer and the author of “Macau Gaming Law – Annotated with Comments”, brings invaluable expertise to the table. Cortés, managing partner at the Macau-based law firm Rato, Ling, Lei & Cortés, where he spearheads the gaming practice, adds a unique insight.
The research details two leading strategies for gaming regulation: the command-and-control model, characteristic of Las Vegas, Nevada, and the concession model, exemplified by the Macau Special Administrative Region in China. The authors conclusively stated, “neither model is inherently superior”, illustrating the successes, failures, advantages, and disadvantages of both models.
Discussing global applications, the authors stated, “Monaco, France, and other countries with significant casino industries have concessions rather than licences and have encountered a few problems”. Meanwhile, “the rigidity of the command-and-control model may have contributed to initial failures in Atlantic City,” in the United States.
The concession model provides the flexibility for governments to adjust their “regulatory oversight to the circumstances not only of its jurisdiction but also to the strengths and weaknesses of the concession holder”. But they also acknowledged that this model “has disadvantages when the jurisdiction has several casinos in a competitive market”.
Interestingly, both models handle the basic elements of gaming regulation: suitability, auditing/accounting, and enforcement. As the authors wrote, “Only the processes are different”.
The authors argue that most comparisons of gaming regulatory systems “disproportionately focus on the process rather than outcomes”. They pointed out that “while the command-and-control system may be superior in some circumstances, the concession system has distinct advantages in places where land is scarce and the government grants shorter-term concessions because of long-term economic uncertainty”.
The paper attempts to dismantle the prevalent belief that the command-and-control model is a gold standard, describing it as “misplaced and often counterproductive”. They pointed out how Nevada’s transformation from organised crime to corporate control resulted in an “overemphasised influence” of the command-and-control model. This has, they suggested, led to “unsustainable claims of a ‘gold standard’ and criticism that other processes, such as the concession system, are inferior simply because they lack the voluminous uniform mandatory controls”.