The introduction of Indian gaming has offered a new path for economic development, allowing gaming nations to achieve greater self-sufficiency. The benefits of gaming have also extended beyond the boundary of Indian nations as adjacent communities benefit from the demand created by Indian casinos. As Indian gaming expands, it is important to consider how the public perceives this form of Native American economic development. Herein, we examine public sentiment regarding Indian gaming using original survey data. Of particular interest is the effect of living near tribal gaming on the perceived costs and benefits and support for Indian gaming. To measure the effect of such exposure, we utilize a maximum likelihood estimator that allows simultaneous estimation of the effect of such exposure and the shape of the distance decay function that governs the measure of exposure itself. Our findings indicate exposure affects respondents’ perceptions of the benefits of Indian gaming for tribes, but not overall support for Indian gaming.
AguilarJosephRandallAkeeMykereziElton. 2024. Place-based Economic Development and Long-Run Firm Employment and Sales: Evidence from American Indian Reservations. National Bureau of Economic Research. Technical Report. https://www.nber.org/papers/w32555
2.
AndersGary C.1998. “Indian Gaming: Financial and Regulatory Issues.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Gambling: Socioeconomic Impacts and Public Policy556 (1): 98–108.
3.
AnsolabehereStephenSchaffnerBrian. 2011. “Cooperative Congressional Election Study, Common Content, 2011.”
4.
BashamPatrickWhiteKaren. 2002. Gambling with Our Future? the Costs and Benefits of Legalized Gambling. The Fraser Institute.
5.
BaxandallPhineasSacerdoteBruce. 2005. “The Casino Gamble in Massachusetts.” In Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, John F Kennedy School of Economics. Harvard University.
6.
BeauvaisEdana. 2021. “Measuring Anti-indigenous Attitudes: The Indigenous Resentment Scale.” Race and Social Problems13 (4): 306–319.
7.
BeyerleinKraigSallazJeffrey J.. 2017. “Faith's Wager: How Religion Deters Gambling.” Social Science Research62 (1): 204–218.
8.
BoehmkeFrederick J.BrantonReginaDillinghamGavinWitmerRichard. 2012. “Close Enough for Comfort: A Spatial Analysis of Gaming Initiatives in California.” The Journal of Politics74 (3): 827–839.
9.
BoehmkeFrederick J.AverySamuel M.GoodMarissa S.DaintyThomas C.KoHyein. 2023. “Did Black Lives Matter Protests Change Public Opinion?” American Politics Research51 (6): 683–700.
10.
BoudetHilaryZanoccoChadHowePeterClarkeChristopher. 2018. “The Effect of Geographic Proximity to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development on Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing.” Risk Analysis38 (9): 1871–1890.
11.
BrantonReginaDunawayJohanna. 2009. “Spatial Proximity to the U.S.—Mexico Border and Newspaper Coverage of Immigration Issues.” Political Research Quarterly62 (2): 289–302.
12.
BrantonReginaDillinghamGavinDunawayJohannaMillerBeth. 2007. “Anglo Voting on Nativist Ballot Initiatives: The Partisan Impact of Spatial Proximity to the U.S.‐Mexico Border.” Social Science Quarterly88 (3): 882–897.
13.
CarmichaelBarbaraPeppardDonaldBourdreauFrances. 1996. “Mega Resort on My Doorstep: Local Resident Attitudes toward Foxwoods Casino on Nearby Indian Reservation Land.” Journal of Travel Research34 (3): 9–16.
ChhabraDeepakGursoyDogan. 2007. “Perceived Impacts of Gambling: Integration of Two Theories.” UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal11 (1): 27–40.
16.
ConnerThaddieusFranklinAimee. 2019. “20 Years of Indian Gaming: Reassessing and Still Winning.” Social Science Quarterly100 (3): 793–807.
17.
ConnerThaddieusTaggartWilliam. 2014. “American Indian Gaming and Public Opinion: An Experimental Study Assessing the Impact of Information on Public Policy Preferences.” Gaming Law Review and Economics18 (5): 451–460.
18.
CookSamuel. 1996. “Ronald Reagan's Indian Policy in Retrospect: Economic Crisis and Political Irony.” Policy Studies Journal24 (1): 11–26.
19.
CornellStephen. 2008. “The Political Economy of American Indian Gaming.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science4 (1): 63–82.
20.
CortinaJeronimo. 2020. “From a Distance: Geographic Proximity, Partisanship, and Public Attitudes toward the U.S.–Mexico Border Wall.” Political Research Quarterly73 (3): 740–54.
21.
EldridgeJ. DouglasJonesJohn PaulIII. 1991. “Warped Space: A Geography of Distance Decay.” The Professional Geographer43 (4): 500–511.
22.
EllisonChristopher G.NybrotenKathleen A.. 1999. “Conservative Protestantism and Opposition to State-Sponsored Lotteries: Evidence from the 1997 Texas Poll.” Social Science Quarterly80 (2): 356–369.
23.
EvansWilliamTopoleskiJulie. 2002. The Social and Economic Impact of Native American Casinos. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper. Accessed May 10, 2022.https://www.nber.org/papers/w9198.
24.
GazelRicardo. 1998. “The Economic Impacts of Casino Gambling at the State and Local Levels.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences556 (1): 66–84.
25.
GerberElisabethPhillipsJustin. 2003. “Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science47 (4): 625–639.
26.
GetchesDavidWilkinsonCharlesWilliamsRobertJr. 2005. Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law. 5th ed.Thomson West.
27.
GiacopassiDVandiverMGrant StittB. 1997. “College Student Perceptions of Crime and Casino Gambling: A Preliminary Investigation.” Journal of Gambling Studies13 (4): 353–361.
28.
GimpelJamesKarnesKimberlyMcTagueJohnPearson-MerkowitzShanna. 2008. “Distance-decay in the Political Geography of Friends-And-Neighbors Voting.” Political Geography27 (2): 231–252.
29.
GravelleTimothy B.LachapelleErick. 2015. “Politics, Proximity and the Pipeline: Mapping Public Attitudes toward Keystone XL.” Energy Policy83: 99–108.
30.
HalásMariánKlapkaPavelKladivoPetr. 2014. “Distance-decay Functions for Daily Travel-To-Work Flows.” Journal of Transport Geography35: 107–119.
31.
HasisiBadiPerrySimonIlanYonatanWolfowiczMichael. 2020. “Concentrated and Close to Home: the Spatial Clustering and Distance Decay of Lone Terrorist Vehicular Attacks.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology36: 607–645.
32.
HillSethRobertsMargaret. 2023. “Acquiescence Bias Inflates Estimates of Conspiratorial Beliefs and Political Misperceptions.” Political Analysis31 (4): 575–590.
33.
HoffmannJohn P.2000. “Religion and Problem Gambling in the US.” Review of Religious Research41 (4): 488–509.
34.
JanesPatricia L.CollisonJim. 2004. “Community Leader Perceptions of the Social and Economic Impacts of Indian Gaming.” UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal8 (1): 13–30.
35.
KraftMichaelClaryBruce. 1991. “Citizen Participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal.” Western Political Quarterly44 (2): 299–328.
36.
LamDesmond. 2006. “The Influence of Religiosity on Gambling Participation.” Journal of Gambling Studies22 (3): 305–320.
37.
LightStevenRandKathryn. 2005. Indian Gaming & Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. University Press of Kansas.
38.
LightStevenRandKathrynMeisterAlan. 2004. “Spreading the Wealth: Indian Gaming and Revenue-Sharing Agreements.” NDL Rev80: 657.
39.
MallachAlan. 2010. Economic and Social Impact of Introducing Casino Gambling: A Review and Assessment of the Literature. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Available at: https://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/. Accessed 8-8-2016.
40.
MarksMindySpilde ContrerasKate. 2007. “Lands of Opportunity: Social and Economic Effects of Tribal Gaming on Localities.” Policy Matters1 (4): 1–11.
41.
MasonW. Dale. 2000. Indian Gaming: Tribal Sovereignty and American Politics. University of Oklahoma Press.
42.
MazmanianDanielMorellDavid. 1990. “The ‘NIMBY‘ Syndrome: Facility Siting and the Failure of Democratic Discourse.” In Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda, edited by VigN. J.&KraftM. E.. Congressional Quarterly Press.
43.
MorrisC. Patrick. 1988. “Termination by Accountants: The Reagan Indian Policy.” Policy Studies Journal16 (4): 731–750.
44.
National Gambling Impact Study Commission. 1999. National Gambling Impact Study Com- Mission Report. National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
OrfordJimGriffithsMarkWardleHeatherSprostonKerryErensBob. 2009. “Negative Public Attitudes towards Gambling: Findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey Using a New Attitude Scale.” International Gambling Studies9 (1): 39–54.
47.
RandKathrynLightSteven. 2006. Indian Gaming Law and Policy. Carolina Academic Press.
48.
SimonChristopherFrendreisJohnTatalovichRaymond. 2023. “Economics, Morality, or Race: Referenda Voting on Tribal Gaming Legalization.” The Social Science Journal60 (3): 491–505.
49.
SpearsDanielBogerCarl. 2002. “Residents' Perceptions and Attitudes towards Native American Gaming (NAG) in Kansas: Proximity and Number of Trips to NAG Activity.” UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal6 (2): 13–27.
50.
SpearsDanielBogerCarl. 2003. “Residents' Perceptions and Attitudes towards Native American Gaming (NAG) in Kansas: Demographics, Policies & Future Development.” UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal7 (2): 13–24.
TaylorJonathanKreppsMatthewWangPatrick. 2000. “The National Evidence on the Socioeconomic Impacts of American Indian Gaming on Non-Indian Communities.” Harvard University: The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development; Available at: https://hwpi.harvard.edu/files/hpaied/files/prs00-1.pdf?m=1639579205
53.
WilkinsDavid E.StarkHeidi Kiiwetinepinesiik. 2017. American Indian Politics and the American Political System. Rowman & Littlefield.
54.
YounSeounmiFaberRonald J.ShahDhavan V.. 2000. “Restricting Gambling Advertising and the Third‐person Effect.” Psychology & Marketing17 (7): 633–649.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
