Policy
Policy refers to decisions made by leaders of society about a given state of affairs. For instance, leaders may design policies to introduce free primary education in a given country, a decision made by a country to join a regional body such as the East African Community, or a decision by a community to introduce policing vigilante. A policy provides a guide to thinking and action. It also defines limits within which decisions can be made.
In organizations, it provides a framework within which subordinate managers make decisions. Policies vary in magnitude depending on the level at which they are made that is, global, national, community, and household. Furthermore, they can be made in medium, small or large institutions (Niebert, 2000, p. 89). In this paper, a policy about the adoption of a state lottery is analyzed. In this case, the policy at hand is the public perception of the state lottery.
State lotteries in the US were re-introduced in the public domain in the 1960s. Supporters of the policy argued that lotteries could boost the budgets. They could promote public education and could perhaps reduce gambling in the public domain. Critics argued that lotteries could lead to crises in the government because the state could not manage the program effectively. Through analysis, scholars observed that lotteries could augment governmental programs as well as increase the rate of public spending. The Illinois case served as an example to the critics.
The contemporary state lotteries in the US were introduced in 1964 in Hampshire. The state became the first to introduce a lottery in the country. However, the idea was never new since similar attempts had been tried earlier in 1937. Before, the introduction of lotteries, the state relied heavily on taxes. The state taxed alcoholic products and tobacco. By adopting the policy, the state raised many taxes, which made other states to adopt the policy in order to increase their financial conditions.
Even though states have gone ahead to enact policies endorsing lotteries, critics point out that the policy is incapable of facilitating education. In other words, the policy is unable to increase funding for social services as claimed by the supporters. From a political standpoint, opponents suggest that few people would be willing to pay taxes related to lotteries. At this point, the state lottery policy can also be viewed to be an executive, legislative, and judicial issue.
It is evident that the policy has been successful in achieving its objectives, although to a certain extent. Since its rebirth in 1964, the policy can be said to have subsisted for over fifty-three years. Furthermore, many states have adopted the policy mainly because of its ability to support social services such as education (Blanche, 1950, p. 21).
Stakeholders
The first category of shareholders in the state lottery is the government, both state and federal. Financial analysts observe that the US lotteries in the present state of affairs contribute more than 2.36% of revenues in the state. The main aim of the government is to introduce policies that would facilitate best practices in the state. In case good policies are formulated in the state, the government stands to benefit from sales, which are approximated at 127%.
This would contribute an approximated $14.1 billion dollars yearly to the budget. In other words, state lotteries have an enormous effect on the budget of the state. There are a number of problems facing the state lotteries, including limited budgetary allocations and regulatory practices. Therefore, policymakers in the state lottery program are faced with the challenge of categorizing and appraising the best practices (Raven, 1991, p. 42).
Another challenge facing the state lotteries in various parts of the country is competition. In the tough financial environment, some lotteries are forced to relocate or change their approaches, which affect tax collection. Furthermore, the lotteries suffer from inadequate technology since they apply old models mainly because of punitive laws and inadequate funding. The state lotteries are constantly under public and media scrutiny.
The media and the public view them as a burden since they are perceived to be contributing nothing to the national kitty. In this recessionary milieu, there is a chance for lotteries to lessen the financial gust by modernizing their industrial techniques with superlative practices, which would sequentially capitulate to important outcomes and help improve state financial plan spaces. By analyzing numerous important quarters of the lottery business, it would be achievable to categorize the opportunities for upgrading the industry.
This would involve coming up with policies touching on cost organization, portfolio combination, advertising, publicizing, vending, communal awareness, and support. State lotteries are at a modulation point. Therefore, whereas the alternatives are unproblematic, the outcomes from moving toward superlative practices and implementing reforms would merit the venture.
Another category of lottery stakeholders includes the players, who are the citizens of the state. In the current regulations governing the game, players should be at least eighteen years of age. However, those participating most in the game are thirty-five years of age and above. Statistics show that a considerable number of people aged between eighteen and twenty-four years of age participate in state lotteries. Demographically, women who take part in state lotteries are very few.
The American lotteries aim at introducing games that would be appealing and entertaining to the public. In this front, the lotteries face a big problem. For instance, the young generation would be willing to try the lottery game by buying scratch tickets. Research conducted by UCLA showed that Americans aged between eighteen and twenty-four years preferred scratch tickets while the older citizens went for jackpots. Therefore, it is true that lottery gaming depends on age, as an individual grows, the desire for scratch tickets diminishes. This is a challenge to the state lotteries. The following graph shows the relationship between age and state lottery (Pierce, & Miller, 2004, p. 90).
The legislature represents the public while the state counties represent the government. Legislature uses parliament debates to advocate for the improvement of the state lotteries. The legislature tries as much as possible to fulfill the interests of the public.
The main aim of the public is to achieve social services such as education. Gaming should also be free and fair to the citizens. Some lotteries are not really meaning that individuals end up losing their resources in the process. On the side of the government, state governments ensure that they collect enough resources, some of which are remitted to the national kitty. Each stakeholder tries to achieve its interests through representatives (Weinsetin, & Deitch, 1974, p. 76).
Definition of the Problem
The two stakeholders view the state lottery differently. The government views it as a tool of economic development. In this regard, the government views the policy to be important in terms of economic development. The state lotteries provide the government with an opportunity to increase revenue without charging more taxes on the citizens. The small-scale businesses rely on the games to increase their capital. Small-scale businesses are very important to any economy.
It promotes the activities of the state in the economy. Some large organizations specialize in merchandizing campaigns. Some organizations offer advertising services through the internet. Furthermore, the government posits that the games provided by the state lotteries serve as entertainment to the citizens. This reduces the rates of crime that would have been committed in case citizens are idle. Moreover, people are able to earn resources that could otherwise been obtained illegally.
However, opponents of the policy also argue that the state lottery have negative impacts. State lotteries only contribute a small percentage of state revenue. Others still argue that the lotteries mislead people to bid their money but the chances of winning are minimal. Finally, opponents of the policy observe that the program targets families earning low incomes. This deprives them of their resources.
The citizens also have their own definition of the policy. Their definition is mainly based on the social milieu. Citizens view the policy as a blessing to them since it gives them a chance to be rich. The policy is very popular given that it supports the educational needs of members of society. However, a section of the society claims that lottery is immoral and goes against the wishes of God. Regarding poverty, race and ethnicity, critics point out that state lotteries benefit from the tribulations of the poor. Economically, the policy places a burden to the poor since the poor sustain it. Both the rich and the poor should sustain a good policy. Otherwise, the policy would be regressive (Bardach, 2012, p. 5).
Theoretical Perspective
Burger observes in his analysis that a policy maker must take some steps in analyzing a particular policy. In this regard, the policy maker should first identify the best thing to do before evaluating the resultant effect of the same policy. In fact, his book addresses the two issues, which are usually vital in policy formulation and evaluation (Munger, 2000, p. 11). The scholar observed that many analysts encounter many problems as regards to the viability of techniques used in analysis.
For instance, an analyst tries to conduct an economic appraisal of a policy while focusing on the market. Due to this, the analyst tries to check whether the policy can deliver the required service. For instance, the scholar uses the classics of economics where the state intervenes to correct the problems in the market in case inconsistencies are encountered. In the real sense, the market is supposed to operate according to its own internal logics.
This does not hold always because of other variables in society. Furthermore, governmental regulations do not favor policies that depend on the free market. The investor might not succeed in implementing the policy in case the government charges higher taxes. The scholar uses the idea of cost-benefit to analyze policies. In this regard, a policy should be valuable in terms of improving lives. In other words, any policy should use available resources to achieve desired goals and objectives (Stone, 2002, p. 65). For this case, the state lottery policy is cost-effective because the resources required to put the gaming stations are not more that the returns.
References
Bardach, E. (2012). A practical guide for policy analysis: the eightfold path to more effective problem solving (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Blanche, E (1950). Lotteries, Yesterday and Tomorrow. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 269(1).
Munger, M. (2000). Analyzing policy: choices, conflicts, and practices (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.
Niebert, D (2000). Hitting the Lottery Jackpot: Government and the Taxing of Dreams. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Pierce, P & Miller, D (2004). Gambling Politics: State Government and the Business of Betting. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner.
Raven, J (1991). The Abolition of the English State Lotteries. The Historical Journal, 34(1).
Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: the art of political decision-making. New York: Norton.
Weinsetin, D. & Deitch, L. (1974). The Impact of Legalized Gambling. New York: Praeger.