•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This study analyzes Indonesia’s online gambling regulation framework from law and economic viewpoints. Indonesia, a predominantly Muslim nation, bans gambling for religious and moral reasons. The following paper suggests evaluating these limitations from an economic perspective to comprehend online gambling’s broader impact. This study will assess online gambling’s consumer welfare, tax income, and social costs using law and economics. Notwithstanding the moral case for banning online gambling. Key findings shows that the economic repercussions, such as black markets and lost tax income, have to be addressed. Regulated online gambling might protect consumers, create substantial revenues through taxes, and minimize negative externalities. This research also criticizes the prohibitionist approach and proposes a more balanced regulatory system that integrates economic efficiency and morality. In conclusion, Indonesia must take a pragmatic and comprehensive approach to online gambling regulation, implementing law and economic theories to create policies that maintain morality and improve societal welfare.

Bahasa Abstract

Penelitian ini menganalisis kerangka hukum perjudian online di Indonesia dari sudut pandang hukum dan ekonomi. Indonesia, sebagai negara dengan mayoritas penduduk Muslim, melarang perjudian karena alasan agama dan moral. Penlitian ini membahas pembatasan ini dari perspektif ekonomi untuk memahami dampak yang lebih luas dari perjudian online sebagai sebuah bahan evaluasi bagi regulator. Studi ini akan menekankan pada kesejahteraan konsumen, pendapatan pajak, dan biaya sosial dari perjudian online dengan menggunakan teori hukum dan ekonomi. Terlepas dari alasan moral untuk melarang perjudian online, penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa dampak ekonomi, seperti pasar gelap dan hilangnya pendapatan pajak, harus ditangani secara serius oleh pemerintah. Perjudian online yang diregulasi dengan baik dapat melindungi konsumen, menciptakan pendapatan yang substansial melalui pajak, dan meminimalkan dampak negatif. Penelitian ini juga mengkritik pendekatan prohibisionis dan mengusulkan sistem regulasi yang lebih seimbang dengan mengintegrasikan efisiensi ekonomi dan moralitas. Kesimpulannya, Indonesia harus mengambil pendekatan yang lebih pragmatis dan komprehensif terhadap regulasi perjudian online, menerapkan teori hukum dan ekonomi untuk menciptakan kebijakan yang mempertahankan moralitas sekaligus meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat.

References

Law Indonesia. Law Number 7 of 1974 on Gambling Control. Indonesia. Law Number 11 of 2008 on Indonesia’s Electronic Information Law in lieu of Law Number 19 of 2016 on Indonesia’s Electronic Information Law. Indonesia. Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code in lieu of Law Number 1 of 1946. Indonesia. Governor’s Decree No. 805/A/k/BKD/1967. Book Posner, Richard A. (2014). Economic Analysis of Law. Aspen: Aspen Publishing. Friedman, Lee S. (2002). The Microeconomics of Public Policy Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Heath, Joseph. (2020). The Machinery of Government: Public Administration and the Liberal State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bentham, J. (1977). A Comment on the Commentaries and a Fragment on Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Journal Richard A. Posner, “Values and Consequences: An Introduction to Economic Analysis of Law” (CoaseSandor Institute for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 53, 1998), p. 10. Richard A. Posner, “Law and Economics Is Moral,” 24 Valparaiso University Law Review 163 (1990), p. 167. Coleman, Jules L. “The Economic Analysis of Law,”, Nomos 24 (1982): 83–103. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/24219446. Hammer, Ryan D., “Does Internet Gambling Strengthen the U.S. Economy? Don’t Bet On It.” Federal Communications Law Journal 54 (2001): p. 120–121 Miller, L., and A.S. Gordh. 2021. “High Recreational Gamblers Show Increased Stimulatory Effects of an Acute Laboratory Gambling Challenge.” Journal of Gambling Studies 37: 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10899-020-09952-3. Wöhr, A., and M. Wuketich. 2021. “Perception of Gamblers: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Gambling Studies 37: 795–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09997-4. Carnelley, M. “Sentencing of Pathological Gamblers in Canada. Lessons for South Africa?” Obiter 25, no. 1 (2023). https://obiter.mandela.ac.za/article/view/16525 Leonardi, L., “The Economic Ramifications of Online Sports Gambling in the U.S.” Michigan Journal of Economics. Last modified: December 4, 2022. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/12/04/whyonline- sports-betting-should-be-allowed-in-every-u-s-state/. Worthington, AC. 2001. “Implicit finance in gambling expenditures: Australian evidence on socioeconomic and demographic tax incidence.” Public Finance Review 29: 326–42. Castrén, S., Kontto, J., Alho, H., and Salonen, AH. 2018. “The relationship between gambling expenditure, socio-demographics, health-related correlates, and gambling behaviour—a cross-sectional population-based survey in Finland.” Addiction 113: 91–106. Sulkunen, P., Babor, TF., Cisneros Ornberg, J., et al. (2018). Setting Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Calabresi, Guido. 1991, “The Pointlessness of Pareto: Carrying Coase Further.” Yale Law Journal 100. Markovits, Richard S., “Duncan’s Do Nots: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Determination of Legal Entitlements.” Stanford Law Review 36, no. 5 (1984). Samuelson, Paul A., “The Empirical Implications of Utility Analysis.” Econometrica 6 (1938): 344. Fischhoff, Baruch. “COST‐BENEFIT ANALYSIS: AN UNCERTAIN GUIDE TO PUBLIC POLICY.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 363 (1981) Banks, J. Online Gambling and Crime: Causes, Controls, and Controversies (London: Routledge, 2016), 143.

Siegel, S. (1961). DECISION: MAKING AND LEARNING UNDER VARYING CONDITIONS OF REINFORCEMENT. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1961. tb20177.x. Mayer, S., Paulus, A., Łaszewska, A., Simon, J., Drost, R., Ruwaard, D., & Evers, S. (2017). Health-Related Resource-Use Measurement Instruments for Intersectoral Costs and Benefits in the Education and Criminal Justice Sectors. Pharmacoeconomics, 35, 895–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017- 0522-4. Gordji, M., & Askari, G. (2017). Hyper-Rational Choice Theory. Behavioral & Experimental Economics eJournal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3099441. Smeulders, B., Crama, Y., & Spieksma, F. (2019). Revealed preference theory: An algorithmic outlook. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 272, 803-815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.026. Website CNA. Indonesia Blocks Almost 900,000 Online Gambling Content over Five Years,” last modified August 10, 2023, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/indonesia-government-blocks-online-gamblingsites- content-application-3690171. The University of Edinburgh. “What is socio-economic disadvantage?” Last modified: December 15, 2022. https://www.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity/students/microaggressions/socio-econonomicmicroaggressions/ how-do-students-experience-microaggressions. Miscellaneous European Commission, 2012. “Online gambling in the Internal Market.” Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2012) 345 final, Strasbourg, October 23. “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions: Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Online Gambling.”

Download

Included in

Criminal Law Commons

Share

COinS