为了一美元和一个梦想:现代美国的州彩票,乔纳森·d·科恩著

IF 0.3 4区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
Jacob S. Hacker
{"title":"为了一美元和一个梦想:现代美国的州彩票,乔纳森·d·科恩著","authors":"Jacob S. Hacker","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Do you feel lucky? When Clint Eastwood asked this question on the big screen, a string of cash-strapped states were asking it of their residents, establishing the first publicly run lotteries in the United States in more than a century. Deindustrializing Northeastern states were under budgetary siege, caught between tax-resistant electorates and their own declining fortunes. They were fighting the mob and wanted to corner its winnings as well as its bosses. And they had ready customers; working-class Catholics fleeing to the suburbs were as eager to play the lottery as the Black urbanites they left behind. The states that pioneered this new wave of government gambling—New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts—were feeling lucky. Lotteries would make their day.They did not. Despite the many innovations to come—scratch-off tickets, growing jackpots, multi-state mega-prizes—lotteries did not rescue Northeastern states from tough choices in the 1970s, make up for property tax revolts in the West in the 1980s, or allow Southern states to revitalize cash-starved education systems in the 1990s. But they did become the biggest government-run business in the United States, with a staggering $45 billion revenue in 2020, surpassing even the profits of cigarettes or smartphones. In a society marked by growing inequality and insecurity, the product that lotteries offered was an increasingly improbable chance of increasingly astronomical riches.This little-known story is an ideal subject for interdisciplinary history, and Cohen seizes the opportunity. His slim book is deeply researched yet eminently readable, and it draws on political science, behavioral economics, public finance, cultural studies, and good old-fashioned political economy. Cohen is as comfortable citing Kahneman as he is Cowie, exploring popular images of wealth as trenchantly as he explicates religious ideals. He has also mined a remarkable number of archives. The only dimension that seems to be missing is the cross-national one; I could not help but wonder whether America’s lottery obsession is unique within the advanced industrial world and, if so, why.Cohen’s book has a straightforward structure, dividing the rise of state lotteries into three phases: their 1970s arrival, 1980s Western consolidation, and 1990s Southern expansion. For each, he pairs an archivally grounded history with a nuanced analysis of associated cultural and economic developments.Three sophisticated interdisciplinary claims are embedded in this simple approach. The first is that state lotteries are fundamentally the product of politics, driven by basic fiscal imperatives, elite-level jockeying, voter attitudes, and (particularly important) aggressive lobbying by the private lottery industry seeking lucrative contracts. Lotteries were established by politicians, and politicians could, in theory, dis-establish them.The second claim, which shifts the focus from politics to economics, is that the explosive growth of lotteries reflects the shifting contours of the American economy since the 1970s. Thus, lotteries went from offering middle-class stability in the 1970s—as one lottery executive put it in 1975, “we sell hope in a depressed economy”—to unimaginable riches in the increasingly unequal decades after (3). The growing sense that workers and families had to deal with economic challenges on their own (a transformation I have called “The Great Risk Shift”) encouraged a growing search for a ticket to upward mobility.Cohen’s final message is his most important: Those who think the United States should revive its long lottery-free era—and Cohen is unapologetically among them—need to listen to the Americans who buy all those tickets. Cohen’s research shows that lottery players are more likely to be low-income, non-white, male, and without a college degree. But he also situates their seemingly irrational bets within a broader context that encompasses not just wrenching economic shifts but also the uncomfortable fact that organs of the state are encouraging vulnerable citizens to make those bets. Drawing on first-hand accounts, Cohen asks us to consider why “tens of millions of Americans every single week … reason that their best hope for a new life lies in the luck of the draw” (207). In doing so, he makes a compelling case for an interdisciplinary approach not just to policy history but also to policy reform.","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"<i>For a Dollar and a Dream: State Lotteries in Modern America</i> by Jonathan D. Cohen\",\"authors\":\"Jacob S. Hacker\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/jinh_r_01983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Do you feel lucky? When Clint Eastwood asked this question on the big screen, a string of cash-strapped states were asking it of their residents, establishing the first publicly run lotteries in the United States in more than a century. Deindustrializing Northeastern states were under budgetary siege, caught between tax-resistant electorates and their own declining fortunes. They were fighting the mob and wanted to corner its winnings as well as its bosses. And they had ready customers; working-class Catholics fleeing to the suburbs were as eager to play the lottery as the Black urbanites they left behind. The states that pioneered this new wave of government gambling—New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts—were feeling lucky. Lotteries would make their day.They did not. Despite the many innovations to come—scratch-off tickets, growing jackpots, multi-state mega-prizes—lotteries did not rescue Northeastern states from tough choices in the 1970s, make up for property tax revolts in the West in the 1980s, or allow Southern states to revitalize cash-starved education systems in the 1990s. But they did become the biggest government-run business in the United States, with a staggering $45 billion revenue in 2020, surpassing even the profits of cigarettes or smartphones. In a society marked by growing inequality and insecurity, the product that lotteries offered was an increasingly improbable chance of increasingly astronomical riches.This little-known story is an ideal subject for interdisciplinary history, and Cohen seizes the opportunity. His slim book is deeply researched yet eminently readable, and it draws on political science, behavioral economics, public finance, cultural studies, and good old-fashioned political economy. Cohen is as comfortable citing Kahneman as he is Cowie, exploring popular images of wealth as trenchantly as he explicates religious ideals. He has also mined a remarkable number of archives. The only dimension that seems to be missing is the cross-national one; I could not help but wonder whether America’s lottery obsession is unique within the advanced industrial world and, if so, why.Cohen’s book has a straightforward structure, dividing the rise of state lotteries into three phases: their 1970s arrival, 1980s Western consolidation, and 1990s Southern expansion. For each, he pairs an archivally grounded history with a nuanced analysis of associated cultural and economic developments.Three sophisticated interdisciplinary claims are embedded in this simple approach. The first is that state lotteries are fundamentally the product of politics, driven by basic fiscal imperatives, elite-level jockeying, voter attitudes, and (particularly important) aggressive lobbying by the private lottery industry seeking lucrative contracts. Lotteries were established by politicians, and politicians could, in theory, dis-establish them.The second claim, which shifts the focus from politics to economics, is that the explosive growth of lotteries reflects the shifting contours of the American economy since the 1970s. Thus, lotteries went from offering middle-class stability in the 1970s—as one lottery executive put it in 1975, “we sell hope in a depressed economy”—to unimaginable riches in the increasingly unequal decades after (3). The growing sense that workers and families had to deal with economic challenges on their own (a transformation I have called “The Great Risk Shift”) encouraged a growing search for a ticket to upward mobility.Cohen’s final message is his most important: Those who think the United States should revive its long lottery-free era—and Cohen is unapologetically among them—need to listen to the Americans who buy all those tickets. Cohen’s research shows that lottery players are more likely to be low-income, non-white, male, and without a college degree. But he also situates their seemingly irrational bets within a broader context that encompasses not just wrenching economic shifts but also the uncomfortable fact that organs of the state are encouraging vulnerable citizens to make those bets. Drawing on first-hand accounts, Cohen asks us to consider why “tens of millions of Americans every single week … reason that their best hope for a new life lies in the luck of the draw” (207). In doing so, he makes a compelling case for an interdisciplinary approach not just to policy history but also to policy reform.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"volume\":\"102 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interdisciplinary History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01983\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01983","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

你觉得幸运吗?当克林特·伊斯特伍德(Clint Eastwood)在大银幕上提出这个问题时,一系列资金短缺的州也在向他们的居民提出这个问题,在美国建立了一个多世纪以来第一个公开发行的彩票。正在去工业化的东北部各州在预算上陷入困境,他们被抵制税收的选民和自己不断下降的财富夹在中间。他们与暴民斗争,想要垄断暴民的利润和暴民的老板。他们有现成的顾客;逃到郊区的工薪阶层天主教徒和他们身后的黑人城市居民一样渴望买彩票。引领这波政府赌博新浪潮的几个州——新罕布什尔、新泽西、纽约、马萨诸塞——感到很幸运。彩票会让他们很开心。他们没有。尽管有许多创新——刮刮乐彩票、越来越多的头奖、多州大奖——彩票并没有在20世纪70年代拯救东北部各州的艰难选择,也没有弥补80年代西部地区对财产税的不满,也没有让南方各州在90年代重振资金匮乏的教育系统。但它们确实成为了美国最大的政府经营企业,2020年的收入达到了惊人的450亿美元,甚至超过了香烟或智能手机的利润。在一个以日益不平等和不安全为特征的社会里,彩票提供的产品是一个越来越不可能获得越来越多的天文数字财富的机会。这个鲜为人知的故事是跨学科历史的理想主题,科恩抓住了这个机会。他那本薄薄的书研究深入,但可读性极佳,它借鉴了政治学、行为经济学、公共财政、文化研究和优秀的老式政治经济学。科恩喜欢引用卡尼曼的话,就像他喜欢引用考伊的话一样,他对流行的财富形象进行了深入的探索,就像他对宗教理想的阐释一样犀利。他还挖掘了数量惊人的档案。唯一似乎被忽略的是跨国层面;我不禁想知道,美国对彩票的痴迷在发达工业国家中是否独一无二,如果是的话,原因是什么?科恩的书结构简单明了,将州彩票的兴起分为三个阶段:20世纪70年代的到来、80年代的西部整合和90年代的南部扩张。对于每一本书,他都将基于档案的历史与相关文化和经济发展的细致分析相结合。这个简单的方法包含了三个复杂的跨学科主张。首先,州彩票从根本上说是政治的产物,受基本财政要求、精英阶层的玩弄权术、选民态度以及(尤其重要的)私人彩票行业寻求利润丰厚合同的积极游说所驱动。彩票是由政治家创立的,从理论上讲,政治家也可以废除彩票。第二种观点将焦点从政治转移到经济,即彩票的爆炸式增长反映了自20世纪70年代以来美国经济的变化。因此,彩票从20世纪70年代为中产阶级提供稳定——正如一位彩票高管在1975年所说的那样,“我们在萧条的经济中出售希望”——到后来日益不平等的几十年里提供难以想象的财富(3)。越来越多的人意识到工人和家庭必须自己应对经济挑战(我称之为“巨大的风险转移”)鼓励人们越来越多地寻找通往向上流动的门票。科恩最后的信息是他最重要的:那些认为美国应该恢复其长期无彩票时代的人——科恩是其中之一——需要倾听那些购买所有彩票的美国人的声音。科恩的研究表明,彩票玩家更有可能是低收入、非白人、男性,而且没有大学学位。但他也把这些看似不合理的赌注放在一个更广泛的背景下,这个背景不仅包括痛苦的经济转变,还包括一个令人不安的事实,即国家机构正在鼓励弱势公民进行这些赌注。根据第一手资料,科恩要求我们思考为什么“每个星期都有数千万美国人……认为他们对新生活的最大希望在于抽签的运气”(207)。在这样做的过程中,他提出了一个令人信服的理由,即不仅对政策历史,而且对政策改革采取跨学科的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
For a Dollar and a Dream: State Lotteries in Modern America by Jonathan D. Cohen
Do you feel lucky? When Clint Eastwood asked this question on the big screen, a string of cash-strapped states were asking it of their residents, establishing the first publicly run lotteries in the United States in more than a century. Deindustrializing Northeastern states were under budgetary siege, caught between tax-resistant electorates and their own declining fortunes. They were fighting the mob and wanted to corner its winnings as well as its bosses. And they had ready customers; working-class Catholics fleeing to the suburbs were as eager to play the lottery as the Black urbanites they left behind. The states that pioneered this new wave of government gambling—New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts—were feeling lucky. Lotteries would make their day.They did not. Despite the many innovations to come—scratch-off tickets, growing jackpots, multi-state mega-prizes—lotteries did not rescue Northeastern states from tough choices in the 1970s, make up for property tax revolts in the West in the 1980s, or allow Southern states to revitalize cash-starved education systems in the 1990s. But they did become the biggest government-run business in the United States, with a staggering $45 billion revenue in 2020, surpassing even the profits of cigarettes or smartphones. In a society marked by growing inequality and insecurity, the product that lotteries offered was an increasingly improbable chance of increasingly astronomical riches.This little-known story is an ideal subject for interdisciplinary history, and Cohen seizes the opportunity. His slim book is deeply researched yet eminently readable, and it draws on political science, behavioral economics, public finance, cultural studies, and good old-fashioned political economy. Cohen is as comfortable citing Kahneman as he is Cowie, exploring popular images of wealth as trenchantly as he explicates religious ideals. He has also mined a remarkable number of archives. The only dimension that seems to be missing is the cross-national one; I could not help but wonder whether America’s lottery obsession is unique within the advanced industrial world and, if so, why.Cohen’s book has a straightforward structure, dividing the rise of state lotteries into three phases: their 1970s arrival, 1980s Western consolidation, and 1990s Southern expansion. For each, he pairs an archivally grounded history with a nuanced analysis of associated cultural and economic developments.Three sophisticated interdisciplinary claims are embedded in this simple approach. The first is that state lotteries are fundamentally the product of politics, driven by basic fiscal imperatives, elite-level jockeying, voter attitudes, and (particularly important) aggressive lobbying by the private lottery industry seeking lucrative contracts. Lotteries were established by politicians, and politicians could, in theory, dis-establish them.The second claim, which shifts the focus from politics to economics, is that the explosive growth of lotteries reflects the shifting contours of the American economy since the 1970s. Thus, lotteries went from offering middle-class stability in the 1970s—as one lottery executive put it in 1975, “we sell hope in a depressed economy”—to unimaginable riches in the increasingly unequal decades after (3). The growing sense that workers and families had to deal with economic challenges on their own (a transformation I have called “The Great Risk Shift”) encouraged a growing search for a ticket to upward mobility.Cohen’s final message is his most important: Those who think the United States should revive its long lottery-free era—and Cohen is unapologetically among them—need to listen to the Americans who buy all those tickets. Cohen’s research shows that lottery players are more likely to be low-income, non-white, male, and without a college degree. But he also situates their seemingly irrational bets within a broader context that encompasses not just wrenching economic shifts but also the uncomfortable fact that organs of the state are encouraging vulnerable citizens to make those bets. Drawing on first-hand accounts, Cohen asks us to consider why “tens of millions of Americans every single week … reason that their best hope for a new life lies in the luck of the draw” (207). In doing so, he makes a compelling case for an interdisciplinary approach not just to policy history but also to policy reform.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interdisciplinary History features substantive articles, research notes, review essays, and book reviews relating historical research and work in applied fields-such as economics and demographics. Spanning all geographical areas and periods of history, topics include: - social history - demographic history - psychohistory - political history - family history - economic history - cultural history - technological history
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信