Abstract
Antell, Blevins, and Jensen present a useful description of the policy conflicts between Indian casino gambling and tribal sovereignty. However, they fail to distinguish casino gaming as a form of community versus economic development in terms of general American Indian tribal community well-being. Legal tension certainly exists between the states (mandated by federal legislation to develop gambling compacts with the tribes) and the tribal governments (regarded by federal treaties as sovereign nations). However, previous literature has also noted the cultural tension between the establishment of Indian casino gambling and the distribution of profits within the tribes. Moreover, the increasing social psychological problems of compulsive gambling have been largely ignored as a tribal problem in justifying economic benefits. In addition, Antell, Blevins, and Jensen have neglected to address the conflicting definitions of “Indian” and, hence, not only how but who tribal gaming enterprises benefit. Evaluation studies that can secure the cooperation of the tribes and employ rigorous research designs are needed to determine whether or not Indian casino gambling is a long-term, successful community development strategy in tribal terms.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
