During the spring, I walked past the closed slot machines in the convenience store with a certain sense of satisfaction. At the same time, I knew that this would have unwanted side effects.

In “normal times,” we have accepted the presence of gambling in convenience stores, even though it has unwanted side effects, noticeable and not negligible, for the people who have problems limiting their gambling.

The negative effects affect not only the gamblers but also have significant consequences for their relatives and loved ones. Since the vast majority of Finns manage their relationship with our monopoly company Veikkaus’s range of games, it has long been considered acceptable to have gambling in grocery stores. The question of what policy to have to preventively protect part of the population through measures that apply to everyone almost requires its own blog series.

In the Ministry of Finance’s proposal for the state budget for 2021, the distribution based on Veikkaus’s results decreases by almost 300 million euros.

Let’s state that in Finland, we have chosen to finance many good things with the not insignificant income that can be obtained as a side effect of controlling and, within certain limits, restricting gambling through a state monopoly.

Now the roles are partially reversed. The misery avoided by people with gambling addiction being able to do their daily grocery shopping without being tempted by the “gambling devil” has consequences for the financing of art, culture, science, sports, youth work, and social and health organizations’ activities.

In the Ministry of Finance’s proposal for the state budget for 2021, the distribution based on Veikkaus’s results decreases significantly, by almost 300 million euros. This is roughly one-third of the around one billion euros distributed annually.

Not everything is related to the COVID-19 pandemic; the main causes are decisions made before the epidemic to introduce restrictions and the increasing shift of gambling to online and international markets.

Are investments made through non-profit organizations less effective, not as employment-generating?

For social and health organizations, where the distribution is channeled by STEA, which is controlled by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, the budget proposal is tough. The cut is 127 million euros, which is one-third compared to this year’s level.

The hardest hit is support for investments, which looks to be halved. At the same time, investments have been made to save the economy from the pandemic’s effects. Are investments made through non-profit organizations less effective, not as employment-generating? If that is the case, the prioritization is defensible.

Of course, those employed by an organization receiving support speak on behalf of their own organization when it comes to the money flow to their own organization. Part of Folkhälsan’s activities is financed by STEA funds. Folkhälsan also receives support via the Ministry of Education and Culture.

For Folkhälsan as a whole, the funds are significant but crucial for only certain activities.

More people will find it harder to manage their everyday lives.

Several other organizations are more dependent on these grants. It is estimated that social and health organizations employ approximately 50,000 people, with various volunteers estimated to be around 500,000.

To this, one can add those who provide peer support, estimated to be 260,000 people. If the cuts to the organizations’ support become the proposed ones, it will affect many people both directly and indirectly. More people will find it harder to manage their everyday lives.

Do we want to compensate for the loss of gambling revenue with tax money?

Typically for the organizations, they also do a lot of preventive work of various kinds. Prevention means savings in the long run. What will the side effects be for the entire society of reduced activities in social and health organizations? The organizations play a significant role in various diseases and problems: diabetes, rheumatism, cancer, mental health, etc.

If there is no money to distribute from Veikkaus, and one wants to maintain the level, funds must be taken from elsewhere. In practice, this means using tax money. We must therefore ask ourselves, do we want to compensate for the loss of gambling revenue with tax money?

People rarely want higher taxes, and we will certainly get them with the increased borrowing that the state has done due to the pandemic. Since the costs of the COVID-19 pandemic have started to become visible, I have asked myself how much preventive measures can cost, and perhaps more precisely, when preventive costs are perceived as acceptable?

Suddenly, there were enormous amounts of money available for something we had not heard of half a year earlier. Yet it has shown that there was knowledge that we should have been able to expect such a pandemic to hit us, if not sooner then later.

We tend to go from unexpected crisis to crisis and in between hope that it will sort itself out.

When I think of the world before COVID-19, preventive investments for the future did not tend to be high on the list. Think of the many and long meetings to agree on measures and find money to drastically change our living habits to address climate change. Have we changed now?

Unfortunately, I do not believe there is evidence to claim that. We tend to go from unexpected crisis to unexpected crisis and in between hope that it will sort itself out, rather than preventing in the long run.

This article by Georg Henrik Wrede was previously published in Swedish on Kommuntorget.