In the modern era of state lotteries, which began in 1964 with New Hampshire’s, debate and criticism often shift away from the general desirability of the lottery to more specific features of its operations: the reliance on convenience stores as vendors; a tendency for the industry to concentrate profits among a few private firms; the regressive impact of the game on low-income communities; and so on.

But even with these concerns, a lottery is still an attractive proposition for many people who would not otherwise be willing to take the risk of spending $1 or $2 for the chance of winning hundreds of millions of dollars. These small expenditures, however, add up to foregone savings that could have been used in other ways—for retirement or tuition, for instance.

A study of the historical data on lotteries, as well as recent empirical studies of current lottery operations, shows that they tend to follow a similar pattern: States legislate a monopoly; establish a state agency or public corporation to run the lotteries; start with a modest number of relatively simple games; and — due to pressure for additional revenues — progressively expand the offerings.

It should come as no surprise that these trends persist. For example, research indicates that lottery play is skewed by socioeconomic status: Men play more than women; blacks and Hispanics participate at lower rates than whites; and lotteries draw disproportionately from middle-income neighborhoods. But even excluding income, lottery participation decreases with age and declines with formal education.