1.

1 Introduction

Marketing refers to activities a company undertakes to

promote the buying or selling of a product or services. Marketing
includes advertising, selling, and delivering products to consumers
or other business. Marketing as a discipline involves all the actions
a company undertakes to draw in customers and maintain
relationship with them. Marketing refers to all activities a company
does to promote and sell products to consumers. Marketing make
use of the “marketing mix “, also known as the four Ps_ product,
price, place, and promotions. Marketing seeks to match a
company’s products and services to customers ultimately ensures
profitability. Dr. Philip Kotler defines marketing as the “science and
art of exploring, crating, and delivering value to satisfy the needs of
a target market at a profit.

Lottery is a variant of gambling .Gambling is the

betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk
and hope of gain. Kerala state lottery was started in the year 1967.
The initiative was taken by the then state finance minister Sri. P. K
.Kunhu .during that period Kerala was suffering from accurate
unemployment .The shift from non-tax revenues such as interest,
dividend and profit, increase public expenditure etc. Were the
factors the factors led the finance minister to think of a
supplementary source of income for the state .Thus lottery was
introduced mainly for reducing unemployment and to a certain
extent for supporting the state revenue

Lotteries were conducted by private agencies at that

time .Later private lotteries are banned. Today only the state
government conduct lottery. At present it gives employment to

[1]
more than 3lakh people. The employed are mostly person who
cannot otherwise be employed, such as physically challenged
people and old aged person

Kerala is a state where people love to try their luck in

lottery games. There are up to seven lotteries which are rolled out
on a weekly basis in Kerala. There are many factors that influence
the people to purchase lottery tickets. The central purpose of this
study is to understand and describe the purchase of lottery tickets
and their characteristics. Why, where, when and how they buy
lottery tickets. Frequency and volume of purchase their in store
behavior. Main focus of this study is to know the purchasing
behavior of people from the physically challenged people who sell
the lottery tickets. There are different type of lottery buyers. Some
may interested in gambling or luck and buy tickets regularly. But
there are some people who buy tickets to help the poor sellers. The
main focus of this study is on that buyers.

1.2 Statement of Problem

People try their fortune in various avenues.Horse Race, Gambling,

Card games, casinos etc. one of the major avenue where the whole
of Kerala puts their money in to try their Luck is by buying their
Lottery Tickets. Among the lottery ticket buyers there are some
buyers who buy from a regular shop regularly. Some buy because
of seeing others begging to buy lottery ticket who struggle to make
out a living.Few buy to help the poor and the disadvantaged people
in the society.Lottery business is one of the biggest money making
venue for the Kerala government.There are many factors that affect
the customers buying behavior. Because many don’t buy to try their
luck. They simply buy because of compassion and to help the

[2]
 differently abled people. Therefore in this study we focus on the
factors that influence the buyers to purchase lottery tickets from the
challenged.

1.3 Objectives of the study

1. To findout the socio-economic characteristics of the purchasers

of the lottery tickets from the physically challenged ticket
sellers
2. To identify the motives for buying a lottery ticket.
3. To know the behavior of people who buy lottery tickets from
physically challenged ticket sellers.

1.4 Research methodology

1.4.1 Data collection

The study is based on the primary data as well as secondary data.

Primary data was collected through questionnaires given to the
selected samples. Secondary data was taken from published sources
available on the internet

1.4.2 Sample design

The study was conducted among the people who buy lottery tickets
residing in the valapad panchayath. The study is descriptive in
nature. Descriptive design as the name itself implies, it is conducted
to describe something.

1.4.3 Sample population

It is difficult to study the entire population in the panchayath. It is a

time consuming process. So a representative sample was drawn and
the study was conducted on the sample to bring out the result

[3]
 1.4.4 Sample size

A sample of 60 is selected from the whole population as the

sample size for the purpose of the study.

1.4.5 Sample technique

The technique used to decide on the sample size was judgment

sampling technique

1.4.6 Tools for data analysis

Questionnaire is used for data collection.The most appropriate tools

for presentation of data such as the charts, tables, diagrams have
been used.

1.5 hypothesis of the study

1.5.1 H1: There is significant association between providing support

to physically disabled people by buying tickets from them and
boosting up in their morale.
1.5.2 H1: there is relation between the feeling of happiness on
purchase of lottery tickets from disabled people and sense of
compassion.
1.5.3 H1: there is significant association between apathy towards
winning prize and sympathy towards disabled people selling lottery
tickets.
1.6 Scope of the study

The study covers valapad panchayath in the district of Trissur

[4]
 1.7 Limitations

1. Ticket buyers were selected random basis for the survey. Buyers
were partially absent among the rich and educated class.
Collection of information from the uneducated class was difficult
2. Absence of previous studies and literature on the topic also
created problems
3. Some of the replies of the respondents may be biased. Which
might have caused error.

[5]
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Nelson (2001) attempted to analyze the working of the state

lotteries department by examining the factors influencing the
sweepstakes behavior in buying lottery ticket, examining the
extent of employment generated, analyzing the problems
faced by wholesalers, retailers and agents in the sector,
analyzing the probability of different types of lotteries offered
by the state and suggesting measures for improvement.
2. A study of the socio-economic impact of the lotteries,
conducted by the institute of socio-economic change,
Bangalore (1994), found that those from the lower income
group both in rural and urban areas participate in the state
lottery. Desire to get rich overnight, convenience, low price
and easy formalities were the factors that attached the lower
income group.
3. “Lottery buyers-study of consumer profile”, a study (1989)
conducted in Gujarat also identified lower income group as
the biggest buyers of lottery.
4. A study conducted by Lal and muraleedharan of Indian
institute of management (1989) also proved that lower and
middle income groups constituted most of the buyers of
lottery tickets. Non buyers were from the educated class.
They were not attracted to towards lotteries because of the
unlimited chances of winning.
5. A social survey conducted by the Malayala Manorama (1985)
daily on the spending habits of prize winners of lottery stated
that 78 per cent of the winners had spent their money for non-

[6]
 productive purpose like building houses, purchasing vehicles,
charity etc.
6. In an article published in the Mathrubhumi weekly dated 2nd
may 1999, Sri. Rajan Varhese argued that the central
government move to ban all kinds of lotteries will seriously
affect the economy of Kerala adversely. Kerala state lottery is
different from many other lotteries since it is fully regulated
by the state government and the resources mobilized through
lottery in used for welfare activities.
7. Abdul latheef Naha, in the Hindu dated 29th august 2002
pointed out that Kerala state lottery is to be restructured to
tide over the present set-backs. Based on the opinion of sellers
and buyers he suggested restructuring schemes, changing of
prize structure, re-establishment of draws in rural places,
avoiding delay in prize distribution etc.
8. In ‘dhanakaryam’ of 15th January 2001 N. Sumitha (2001)
wrote an article on “the way in search of luck”. In this article
she pointed out that there are large number of unauthorized
lotteries functioning in Kerala which has reduced the sale of
lottery. Online lottery, lotteries of other states etc. are mainly
conducted without any proper records or sanctions. They
exploit the public to a large extent. At the same time sale of
such tickets affect Kerala state lottery adversely.
9. In an editorial in the Mathrubhumi dated 5th June 1998, they
strongly recommended the banning of other state lottery
tickets in Kerala. Kerala state lottery tickets are sold in Kerala
alone because their sale is banned by many states. But lottery
tickets of many other state are sold in Kerala without any
control. Kerala state lottery is different from that of other state
because there is very little control on lotteries by the

[7]
 government in other states where as lottery in Kerala is fully
controlled by the government. Banning the sale of other state
lottery tickets in Kerala will increase the employment
opportunities in the state and to a large extent exploitation of
the public can be restricted
10. In December 1997 the Kerala state lotteries department
published a booklet named “Kerala state lottery -30 years of
achievement 1967-1997”. In the first article named
“Employment opportunities in the lottery sector,” Mr.
Sasidharan Nair argued that in a state where there are more
than 30 lakh unemployed, providing employment to nearly 3
lakh of people is not a silly thing, that too without any
investment. The employed are mostly persons who cannot
otherwise be employed, such as physically challenged and old
aged persons.
11. In the second article named “importance of lottery in our
economy” Mrs. Vilasini argued that income from lotteries is
mainly used for welfare activities such as education, health
etc. In a state like Kerala where resource mobilization is
difficult, lottery should be given due importance. Lottery also
contributes to the central government by way of income tax.
12. In December 2001The Kerala state lotteries department
published another booklet named “ban on lottery: is it
necessary in Kerala? This booklet included opinions of almost
all major newspapers and periodicals in Kerala, major
political party leaders, social workers, and those engaged in
lottery business. All of them pointed out that banning lottery
is unnecessary in Kerala because it is a fully government
controlled lottery. It gives employment to more than 3 lakh

[8]
 people and banning will affect the finance of the state
adversely.
13. Ghent and grant (2007), with a regression analysis, studied
separately the factors that influence the purchase of three type
of lottery products offered by the South Carolina education
lottery: instant scratch cards, fixed odds online games and
lotto and examined their distributional effects across income
and demographic factors. Their results show that when
analyzing different type of games, different conclusions are
retrieved. The conclusions show that the estimated effects of
the various demographic variables differ on sale among
products. This indicates the need to analyze separately the
determinants of demand for products offered by lotteries
14. Johnson (1976) suggested a few measures for improving
lottery sales and revenue which may be of some use in
designing a specific policy frame for state lotteries. These
suggestions include: (a) increasing the frequency of draws to
retain public interest and to encourage rechanneling of
winnings; (b) offering a large number of lotteries with
different prize structures. (c) Reducing the price of tickets and
making them more convenient to buy; (d) devising a prize
structure with a few very large prizes in order to capture the
imagination of purchasers along with a large number of small
prizes to ensure that most individual would “know” someone
who has won. The additional revenue thus mobilized could be
earmarked for specific developments programs for the lower
income classes which could partly redress the regressivity of
the lottery tax
15. James Walsh (1996) studied as to why people play the lottery,
and the findings emphasized expected value and risk-taking

[9]
 behavior of lottery players; their forecasts, comparison, and
calculations in respects off odds against winnings.
16. Thimmaiah (1969) made an attempt to evaluate the economics
of state lottery schemes both in Karnataka state and other state
in India. He strongly advocated a need to curb gambling
through a central act.
17. Mompilly (1969) analyzed the normative relationship
between means and ends of running state lotteries.
18. Chatterjee (1995) made an economic assessment of the
functioning of state government lotteries in India. The study
concluded that state lotteries in India are a relatively high cost
instrument of resource mobilization, and raised the primary
concern as to whether the prohibition of lotteries or the
withdrawal of the state from lottery activity would be
effective in curbing people’s tendency to gamble and lead to a
proliferation of other illegal/criminal forms of activities.
19. Frey (1984) give us an account that crates a hermeneutical
circle between cause and consequences of gambling.
20. In Germany Albers and Hubl (1997) used a probit technique
to estimate the individual pattern of legal gambling in that
country. With a sample of 1586 adults, they estimated
separate functions of participation for all forms of commercial
gambling. They developed a survey in order to have a set of
exploratory variables that covered the following socio-
economic characteristics: age, gender, education, income,
family status, employment status, home ownership,
occupation and importance of maximum prize in lotto for the
gambler to explain the participation and/or non-participation
in the different type of gambling-lotto, draw lotteries, TV
lotteries, soccer Toto pools, horse race betting, gaming

[10]
 machine and casinos. Their results point out that income, in
Germany, has positive and significant influence on the
participation in most commercial games, suggesting that
gambling is a widespread consumption good; the exceptions
are soccer Toto , which declines with income and lotto for
which income was found to have no impact
From the review of literature presented, it is clear that lottery
is an unexplored area. Whatever little are available, they are
not very serious or rigor piece of literature. Thus in order to
fill this gap this study is attempted.

3.1 Meaning of marketing

Marketing is a business term that experts have defied in

dozens of different ways. In fact, even at company level people may
perceive the term differently. Basically, it is a management process
through which products and services move from concept to the
consumers. It includes identification of a product, determining
demand, deciding on its price, and selecting distribution channels. It
also includes developing and implementing a promotional strategy.

3.2 Definition of marketing

Philip Kotler defined marketing as “satisfying needs and wants

through an exchange process”. And a decade later defines it as “a
social and managerial process by which individuals and group obtain
what they want and need through creating, offering and exchanging
products of value with others.

Marketing is defined by the American marketing association as “the

activity, set of institution, and processes for creating, communicating,
delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers,
clients, partners, and society at large”. The term developed from the

[11]
original meaning which referred literally to going to market with
goods for sale. From a sale process engineering perspective,
marketing is “a set of process that are interconnected and
interdependent with other functions of a business aimed at achieving
customer interest and satisfaction.

The UK-based chartered institute of marketing (CIM) defines

the term as follows: “marketing is the management process
responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer
requirements profitably”

At the core of marketing is an understanding of what customer

needs and values. A company’s long-term success depends on
learning what its customers’ needs are. It then finds ways to add
value through different approaches

3.3 Marketing strategy

A company’s marketing strategy should combine all its objectives

into one integrated and comprehensive plan. In other words, it
should not focus on one strategy at the expense of others.

It should use market research data to create its strategy. The

company should focus on the ideal product mix to reach the
optimum profit potential. The right product mix is crucial to
sustaining the business.

Fundamentally, sales and marketing are trying to achieve the

same thing. In other words, they are trying to get more customers
and revenue. However, they look at things slightly differently. Put
simply; marketing focuses on the product. Sale also focuses on how
to persuade customers to like it and buy it.

[12]
 Public relation

“A strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial

relationship between organizations and their publics,” says the
PRSA.

Sales

Sales includes planning and supporting the sales team by pushing

ahead with sales targets. It also involves formulating a plan as to
how to reach potential and existing customers. Sales people aim to
hit those targets.

3.4 Marketing principles

Marketing principles are agreed upon marketing ideas that sellers

use for a successful marketing strategy. We also refer to it as the
principles of marketing. Some companies follow the 4Ps strategy of
product, price, place, and promotion. We also refers to it as the 4P
marketing mix. Others on other hand, may follow the 7Ps strategy
of product, place, price, promotion, people, physical environment,
and process

3.5 Customer satisfaction

Consumer satisfaction is the simultaneous or sequential

experience of multiple emotional states, as a result of the interaction
between internal factors and external objects, people, institutions,
and/or cultural phenomena in market oriented contexts that can have
direct and/or indirect ramifications on pre-purchase, purchase or
post-purchase attitudes and behavior. Many studies have examined
the effect of one specific emotion or valence in consumer contexts.

[13]
Recent studies clearly illustrate that consumers’ mixed emotions, or
ambivalence, are also salient in the market place. A few studies
have discussed ambivalence as an emotional outcome of consumer
behavior.

Andresen (1981) acknowledged the greatly accelerated

growth of American institutions that choose to-or are mandated to-
bring about socially desirable attitudes and behaviors. These social
marketers include such organizations and/or groups as Health
Maintenance Organizations, Alcoholics Anonymous, the Office of
Cancer Communications, and the United Way. Fox and Kotler
(1980) indicate that many of these organizations have discovered
marketing as a potentially useful tool to help them achieve their
objectives, which often deal with planned social change. According
to the U.S. Public Health Service (1991), of the ten leading causes
of death in the United States, at least seven could be reduced
substantially if people at risk would change just five behaviors:
Compliance (e.g., use of antihypertensive medication), diet,
smoking, lack of exercise, and alcohol and drug abuse. Each of
these behaviors is inextricably linked with marketing efforts and the
reactions of consumers to marketing campaigns. Thus, the link
between ‘consumer choices’ and ‘social problems’ is clear.

Customer satisfaction is defined as “the number of customers,

or percentage of total customers, whose reported experience with a
firm, its product’ or its services exceeds its satisfaction goals.
Customer satisfaction is an ambiguous and abstract concept and the
actual manifestation of the state satisfaction will vary from person
to person and product/services to product/services. The state of
satisfaction depends on a number of both psychological and
physical variable which correlate with satisfaction behavior such as

[14]
return and recommendation rate. The study of consumer behavior is
concerned not only with what customers buy, but with why they
buy it, when, where, and how they buy it, and how often they buy it.
Consumer behavior research takes place at every phase of the
consumption process: before the purchase, during the purchase, and
after the purchase. Consumer behavior in respect of lotteries is no
exception to this.

3.6 Negligent Consumer Behavior

Many consumers (particularly those who overindulge in

lotteries), in some manner or another, exhibit what might be termed
negligent behavior. "Negligent behavior" is composed of those
actions and inactions that negatively affect the long-term quality of
life of individuals and/or society. Consumer behavior research and
theory provide insight into how both marketers and public policy
makers can influence consumers to behave in a safer, socially
relevant manner.

3.7 Lottery

Lottery is a popular form of gambling. It is a contest for prizes

in which the contestants surrender considerations – Money or some
other stake and which is in whole or in part determined by chance.
Lotteries have been widely used for amusement, to determine the
ownership among multiple claimants, to dispose of private property,
to raise money for benevolent purposes and as a substitute for
taxation by governments. The Lotteries Regulations Act 1998 of the
Government of India defines lottery as “a scheme, in whatever form
and by whatever name called, for distribution of prizes by lot or
chance to those persons participating in the chances of a prize by
purchasing tickets”. The prizes are distributed by drawing tickets

[15]
from a pool composed of all tickets sold or offered for sale. From
the revenue by the sale of tickets the expenses of conducting the
lottery and prize amounts are to be met. The balance if any is the
profit of the conductor. In lotteries a few prizes of large amounts
and a large number of prizes of small amounts are offered. Lotteries
are popular and have a wide appeal as a means of raising money.

In Kerala the ‘Kuri Kalyanam’, may be viewed as the oldest

from of lottery, in which many persons contribute small amounts for
a common purpose. E.g. a marriage. A Lottery was organized by
H.H. Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma of Travancore to raise
funds for the Second World War Many other private Lotteries were
also conducted. E.g. the Malayala Manorama Lottery, the
Keralakalamandalam Lottery etc. Educational institutions, libraries
etc. conducted lotteries to raise money for their developmental
activities. All those private lotteries were controlled by the
Government by issuing licenses. It was ensured that the funds
raised by conducting lotteries were utilized only for public
purposes. But when the number of lotteries increased the
Government found it difficult to control all of them. Many of the
lotteries started to make huge profits and utilized them for private
purposes. Non distribution of prizes, tax evasion etc. also became
common. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala Government
banned all private lotteries and started the Kerala State Lottery.

Kerala State Lottery, launched in the year 1967, is the most

important lottery in India, run by a Government. It provides
employment to more than 3 lakhs people, who are engaged in
selling lottery tickets on commission basis. Employment generated
from the printing and transportation of tickets is in addition to this.
Most of the persons engaged in the sale of tickets are persons who

[16]
are not able to do any other job, such as physically challenged, aged
etc.

In addition to the employment generated, the income

generation by the Kerala State Lottery is also significant. The
Kerala Government generates on an average a profit of Rs. One
crore from lotteries every month. More than Rs. 5 crores is
provided by way of income tax on prizes to the Government of
India every year. Most of the buyers of tickets of Kerala State
Lottery belong to the low income group. So naturally prize amount
is received by the poor people, which is a socially desirable
attribute. The utilization of prize money by the winners also
generates employment opportunities. The pattern of utilization of
prize money by the winners, the motive behind buying tickets, the
income and expenditure pattern of the Kerala State Lotteries
Department, income generated by the Government from lotteries,
the employment created by Kerala State lottery etc. deserve
attention.

3.8 Risks in Buying Lottery Tickets

Consumers, particularly the purchasers of lottery tickets, are

constantly faced with decisions that involve some uncertainty about
an outcome. They perceive different types of risk (e.g. odds against
winning) associated with gambling activities. ‘Perceived risk’ is a
consumer’s perception of the overall negativity of a course of action
based upon an assessment of the possible negative outcomes and of
the likelihood that those outcomes will occur. In general, consumers
are risk averse in their actions. However, exceptions to the rule do
exist. Some consumers appear to seek risk in order to raise their
activation levels. People indulging in lotteries may perceive five

[17]
types of risk associated with gambling such as: financial,
performance, psychological, social, and opportunity loss.

‘Financial risk’ implies that the outcome will harm the consumer
financially in terms of repeatedly losing money in buying lotteries,
and getting impoverished. ‘Performance risk’ is that the product
will not perform as expected. This indicates the inability of the
tickets bought to win prize money for the purchaser. ‘Psychological
risk’ involved in gambling is the product will lower consumer’s
self-image. This is the risk of experiencing a sense of guilt,
depression, or addiction before, during and after the purchase of
lottery tickets. ‘Social risk’ is the risk that friends or acquaintances
will derive the purchase of lotteries in the form of social
disapproval. Finally, ‘opportunity loss’ is that risk whereby taking
one action (diverting money for buying lottery tickets) the consumer
will miss out on doing something else (children’s education,
medical treatment) he/she would really prefer doing. For each of the
five types of risk, one can identify the two components of risk - the
likelihood of loss and the amount of loss. The goal of the study of
consumer behavior is to properly describe, explain, and ultimately
predict human actions in the market place. The consumer rarely acts
solely as an individual but rather behaves in the" actual, imagined,
or implied presence of others."

3.9 Historical background

Lottery is one of the forms of gambling. The first European

records of lotteries are from 15th century Burgundy and Belgium
and reveal that towns attempted to raise money for purposes as
fortifying their defenses or aiding the poor. Francis I of France
permitted the establishment of lotteries for private and public profit
in several cities between 1520 and 1539. The first public lottery to

[18]
have paid money as prizes is believed to be La Lotto de Firenze in
Florence in 1530. This was such a successful enterprise that the
practice quickly spread to other Italian cities.

Lotteries were said to have been employed in Rome from the

middle- ages when Italian merchants used them to "sell" their
merchandise. When the Italian nation was united, the first national
lottery was created in 1863, with regular (weekly) drawings
organized for the purpose of providing income for the State. Lotto,
the Italian national lottery, is regarded as the basis for such modern
games as "policy" the "numbers game", "lotto", "keno", and
"bingo". The first English lottery seems to have been approved in
1569 for a specific purpose, namely, for raising harbors. After a
short but rapid expansion during the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth century, lotteries fell into disrepute mainly because of
irregularities in their operation and by the middle of the nineteenth
century they were prohibited in England, France and Sweden.

A more or less similar historical phenomenon existed in the case of

North American colonies where lotteries were introduced in the
early seventeenth century and their proceeds used for
developmental purposes (for financing the construction of roads,
canals, industries, cities, educational institutions and churches).
After independence in 1776, much of the lottery activity centered on
Philadelphia.

Australia has been called the ‘real home of the State lottery.
There all the States except South Austria conduct lotteries for
financing public programs and projects. New South Wales, which
had lotteries as early as 1849, with sales of more than 1,000,000
tickets a week; it has financed, among other things, the spectacular
Sidney Opera House (completed) in the early 1970s. New South

[19]
Wales raffles houses, cars and similar prizes on a scale unequaled
anywhere in the world.

3.10 The Indian Experience

In India, lotteries were initiated by a few State

governments during the late sixties. The main objective of lotteries
was to mobilize resources for the State governments apart from
serving other socio-economic goals including provision of
employment for sale of lottery tickets and replacement of other
forms of gambling by State-sponsored mechanisms. Subsequently,
however, some State governments like Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh
discontinued lotteries.

The lottery system in India is generally organized in two

ways. First, there are government-run lotteries in which the
government undertakes all relevant operations such as printing and
selling the tickets and conducting the draw. The States which have
this system are Karnataka and Maharashtra. The other method is
government sponsored which has two streams:

 The government prints the tickets, decides upon the prizing

pattern, and then sells the tickets to wholesale agents at a
discount. Normally the major prizes are decided by the
government while the minor ones are left to the discretion of the
agents.
 The agents decide the prizing pattern and remit a royalty to the
government depending upon their profits. Most of the eastern
States of India have adopted this method.

Lotteries have a very wide appeal as a means for raising

money; they are simple to organize, easy to play, and, in general,
popular, but 63controversial.Voices of opposition to State

[20]
sponsored lotteries began to dominate on the grounds that lotteries
have "a demoralizing influence upon the people". Further, lottery as
a means of gambling erodes the moral foundations of the people,
encourages attitudes that are not conducive to thrift and hard work,
generates large (social) costs external to the gambler, and has the
danger of leading to overindulgence. It could be argued, therefore,
that the State should, at least refrain from sponsoring such activities,
if not completely prohibit them. It may, however, be mentioned that
the charge of overindulgence against lotteries is not always
supported by definitive evidence. Moreover, it has been recognized
that the tendency for overindulgence depends upon specific factors
such as the frequency of opportunity to gamble, the odds against
winning, the extent to which the gambler thinks that he is exercising
his skill in choosing the winning numbers, the element of
entertainment or connection with some sporting event, etc., which
may not characterize all systems of lotteries. Therefore, to the
Extent State lotteries are devoid of these features, they may be
absolved from the charge of abetting overindulgence.

The case for State-sponsored gambling (lotteries) is usually

put forward on the basis of the following two arguments:

i. the substitution effects of such a mechanism, and

ii. The benefits that are inherent in this system.

On the assumption of a high likelihood of malpractices in

privately organized gambling and the alleged nexus between some
of these forms and various criminal activities, it is often contended
that State-sponsored lotteries are able to offer a ‘safer’ avenue to
gamblers. The assumption of substitutability between lottery
products themselves, and between lotteries and other games was
examined by Clotfelter and Cook (1990). They, however, found that

[21]
in the United States, the introduction of a more popular State lottery
(the Lotto), in fact, simultaneously increased the sales of other State
lotteries implying the injection of ‘new’ money. While accepting
that there was no reliable evidence for extending this conclusion to
illegal games, they nevertheless, observed that State lotteries had
greatly broadened participation in commercial gambling both legal
and illegal.1 Further, the claim that the nationalization of the lottery
system is necessary in order to keep it honest and the assurance that
the consumer gets what he wants, presupposes that competition in
the industry is so weak as to fail to offer any consumer protection.

Once it is accepted that gambling, though regarded as a

"social evil", cannot be curbed appreciably, then the State may be
justified in sponsoring it and raising a revenue therefrom, much on
the same grounds as those advanced for levying taxes on alcohol
and tobacco products. The resources thus mopped up from the
public could be redirected towards developmental ends (like the
provision of social and economic services). In effect, the State by
offering a lottery, provides a service which satiates the ‘gambling
urges’ of the consumers. It is generally recognized that under the
critical assumptions

 That individuals are well informed and

 That there are no externalities in consumption, the legalization
and provision of lotteries by the State, even with a prize greater
than the average administrative cost, creates a potential
consumer surplus (and hence an increase in economic welfare)
when compared to the situation in which lotteries are prohibited.

Lotteries which, to begin with, were a "harmless pleasure"

have gradually degenerated into a "social evil". The single-digit
lotteries, with daily prizes, have wrecked millions of lives. The

[22]
"lure of easy money" has literally spelt doom for millions of
families. It is also argued that the single digit lottery with daily
prizes singularly responsible for "corruption and malpractices" that
have crept into the lottery business.

The government knows that more than the rich and the
middle class, it is the poor who succumb to the lure of lottery and
throng the lottery shops to invest their hard-earned daily wages in
them in the fond hope of getting rich overnight, but in consequence
they impoverish themselves.

All the States where lotteries are in operation, claim that

they have utilized the profits for welfare schemes and
developmental works. Though it may benefit the State exchequer,
only marginally, it does immense harm to the mind of the common
man who finds only grief in his chase of luck.

The Supreme Court of India, in an interim order, framed

the guidelines to safeguard the interests of the lottery ticket buyers,
who could be cheated by unscrupulous private operators. The
guidelines are: lotteries should be run by State governments; the
government’s emblem should be printed on each ticket; the result
should be drawn at the headquarters of the lottery department; prize
money, if not claimed, should be held by the State government
concerned; and to ensure transparency, eminent public persons and
government representatives should be involved in drawing the
result.

According to the Indian constitution in respect of the

government- organized lotteries under schedule VII of the
Constitution, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws
governing such lotteries. Lotteries organized by any other agency
come under the entry of "betting and gambling" in the State list, and

[23]
would be subject to regulations by Acts enacted by the respective
States.

On October 2, 1997, the President of India, promulgated an

ordinance banning single digit/instant lotteries and regulating the
other types of lotteries. The ordinance empowered State
governments to ban the sale of lotteries of other States in their own
jurisdiction and enabled the Central government to issue any
directions necessary to regulate the lottery trade in the country.
Realizing the "evil effects" most of the States began legislating anti-
lottery laws. At present, there is a total ban on lotteries in 14 States
(appendix-I).

3.11 Conclusion

To conclude, State-sponsored lotteries came into existence both in

India and abroad for the purposes of mobilizing revenue, creating
employment opportunities, and to replace other forms of unsafe
gambling activities. Even though State lotteries have a very wide
appeal as a means for raising money, of late, they have become
controversial and attracted criticism from social activists, voluntary
organizations, and religious groups due to their evil effects.
Nevertheless, any planned intervention to bring about desirable
change in the attitudes and behavior of gamblers can be thought of
only after understanding the dynamics of lottery purchase and its
usage.

[24]
 Table no: 4.1 Age Group

particulars number
20-30 13
30-40 7
40-50 22
50 above 18
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure: 4.1 Age Group

25 22
20 18

15 13
NUMBER

10 7
5

0
20-30
20 30-40 AGE 40-50 50 above

Interpretation: From this graph the age group of people who bbuy
lottery tickets can be interpreted. 22 respondents are in the range of 40
to 50.18 are above 50 .13 are in the range of 20-30
20 30 and 7 are in the
range of 30-40.

[25]
 Table no: 4.2 Gender

gender number
Male 44
Female 16
Total 60
(Source: primary
primar data)

Figure: 4.2 Gender

27%

Male
73% Female

Interpretation: This figure shows that 73%of male and 27%

females are buying lottery tickets.

[26]
 Table 4.3: Education

particulars Number Percentage

ercentage
Higher
igher secondary 34 57%
Graduate 21 35%
Post graduate 5 8%
Total 60 100%
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.3: Education

8%

35% higher secondary

57%
Graduate
Post graduate

Interpretation: From this graph we can analyze that from the

people who buy lottery tickets 57% of them have higher secondary
education 35% of them are graduate and only 88%
% are post graduate

[27]
 Table 4.4: Salary

salary Number
Nil 10
Below 10000 8
10000-20000
10000 22
20000-30000
20000 14
Above 30000 6
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.4: Salary

25 22

20
14
NUMBER

15 10
8
10 6
5
0

SALARY

Interpretation:: This figure and table points that most ticket buyers
have a salary range between 110000-20000.10
20000.10 people have no
occupation.8 people have below 10000.14 people have salary range
between 20000-30000
30000 and 6 people have salary of more than 30000.
30000

[28]
 Table 4.5: Buying tickets from

particulars Frequency
Shops 6
vehicles 3
individuals 47
Spec
Specific vendor 4
total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.5: Buying tickets from

50 47
45
40
35
30
NUMBER

Shops
25
vehicles
20
15 individuals
10 6 4 Specific vendor
3
5
0
Frequency

PARTICULARS

Interpretation: From this graph we can analyze that most of the

people buy tickets from individuals. Out of 60 samples 47 people
buy tickets from individuals.6 people buy from
from shops, 4 people buy
from specific vendors only 3 people buy from vehicles.

[29]
 Table 4.6 aim of buying tickets

particulars number
To help unemployed 21
To get prizes 25
To help government financially 0

Interest in gambling 6
Pressure of sellers 1
On sympathy 7
total 60

(Source:primary data)

Figure 4.6 aim of buying tickets

25
To help unemployed
25
21
To get prizes
20
To help government
15 financially
number

Interest in gambling
10 7
6 Pressure of sellers

5
1 On sympathy
0
0
particulars

Interpretation: This shows that 25 respondents are buying tickets to

get prizes and 21 respondents buy to help unemployed.6 respondents
are interested in gambling 7 respondents
respondents buy tickets on sympathy and
only 1 is buying because of the pressure of sellers and no one is buying
tickets to help government financially
financially.

[30]
 Table 4.7 disabled ticket sellers usually find at

particulars Number
Coffee shop 2
Bus stand 30
Religious places 14
Festive gathering 2
Auto/taxi stand 12
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.7 disabled ticket sellers usually find at

30
30

25

20
14
NUMBER

12
15

10
2 2
5

0
PARTICULARS

Coffee shop Bus stand Religious places

Festive gathering Auto/taxi stand

Interpretation: From this graph we can see that disabled ticket

sellers are mostly seen at the bus stands. 30 respondents says that
those ticket sellers are seen in the bus stands. Only 2 respondents
says that they usually find in the coffee shop and festive gatherings

[31]
 Table 4.8 Frequency of B
Buying

particular frequency
Daily 9
Once in a week 10
Once in two weeks 4
Once In a month 17
During festive bumpers 2
Rarely 18
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.8 Frequency of B

Buying

18
16
14
12
NUMBER

10 17 18
8
6 9 10
4
2 4 2
0
Daily Once in a Once in Once In a During Rarely
week two month festive
weeks bumpers

PATICULARS

Interpretation: From this graph we can point out that 18 peoples

buy lottery rarely 17 people buy lottery once in a month.
month.10
10 people
buy tickets once in a week.9 people buy tickets daily and 4 people
once in two week and only 2 people buy during festive bumpers.

[32]
 Table 4.9: amount spent per month

Percent
particulars number
age

Less than 500 58 97%

3%
501
501-1000 2

More than 1000 0 0%

Total 60 100%
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.9: amount spent per month

3%

Less than 500

501-1000
More than 1000

97%

Interpretation: This picture shows that 97 percent of people buy

tickets for less than 500 per month. Only 3percent buy tickets in the
range of 500_1000. No one in the given sample buy tickets for more
than 1000 per month.

[33]
 Table 4.10: buying tickets from authorized agents

particulars number
Strongly agree 10
Agree 20
No answer 12
Disagree 8
Strongly disagree 10
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.10:
4.10: buying tickets from authorized agents

25

20

15
number

10 20 10
12
5 10
8

0
Strongly Agree No answer Disagree Strongly
agree disagree

particulars

Interpretation: From the above graph we can understand that 10

respondents strongly agree and 20 respondents that they buy tickets
from authorized agents. 8 people disagree and 10 people strongly
disagree that they buy tickets from authorized agents.12 respondents
have no answer.

[34]
 Table 4.11 Buying tickets to support them

particulars Number
Strongly agree 18
agree 40
No answer 1
disagree 1
Strongly disagree 1
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.11 Buying

B tickets to support them

40
40
30
NUMBER

18
20
10 1 1 1
0
Strongly agree No answer disagree Strongly
agree disagree
PARTICULARS

Interpretation: From the above graph it can be interpreted that 40

respondents agree and 18 respondents strongly agree that they are
buying tickets from the physically disabled men to support them
only 1 respondent
ent strongly disagree this.

[35]
 Table 4.12 B
Buying tickets from same person

particulars Number
Strongly agree 2
agree 5
No answer 13
disagree 30
Strongly disagree 10
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.12 Buying

B tickets from same person

35
30
30
25
number

20
15 13
10
10
5 5
2
0
Strongly agree No answer Dis agree Strongly
agree disagree

particulars

Interpretation:
ation: This figure reveals that 10 respondents strongly
disagree and 30 respondents disagree that they buy tickets from
same person.2 respondents strongly agree and 5 respondents agree
that they buy tickets from same person and 13 samples have no
answers.

[36]
 Table 4.13 Got prizes

particulars Number
Strongly agree 9
agree 28
No answer 9
disagree 7
Strongly disagree 7
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.13 Got prizes

30 28
25

20
number

15
9 9
10 7 7

0
STRONGLY AGREE NO DIS AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE ANSWER DISAGREE
particulars

Interpretation: From the above graph it can be interpreted that 28

respondents agree and 9 respondents strongly agree that they have
got some prizes earlier by buying lottery tickets.

[37]
 Table 4.14 Purchase
Purchase without much thought and care

Particulars Number
Strongly agree 5
agree 17
No answer 12
disagree 16
Strongly disagree 10
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.14 purchase without much thought and care

17
16

12
number

10

Strongly agree agree No answer disagree

particulars
Strongly disagree

Interpretation: This figure reveals that 17 respondents agree and 5

respondents strongly agree that they purchase tickets without much
thought
hought and care.16respondents dis agree and 10 respondents strongly
disagree that they buy tickets without much thought and care. 12
respondents have no answer

[38]
 Table 4.15: believe in gambling or luck

particulars Number

Strongly agree 3
agree 13
No answer 12
disagree 22
Strongly disagree 10
total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.15: believe in gambling or luck

22
25
20
13 12
number

15 10
10
3
5
0
Strongly agree particulars
agree No answer
disagree Strongly disagree

Interpretation: From the above graph we can interpret that most of

the respondents don’t believe in gambling or luck 22 respondents
disagree
ree this. 12 samples have no answer for this.

[39]
 Table 4.16: disabled people should do some other work

Particulars Number
Strongly agree 0
agree 5
No answer 10
disagree 28
Strongly disagree 17
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure4.16: disabled people should do some other work

30
25
20
number

15 28
10 17
5 10
5
0 0
Strongly agree No disagree Strongly
agree answer disagree
particulars

Interpretation: 17 respondents strongly dis agree and 28 respondents

disagree that disabled people should not sell lottery tickets they should
do some other work .No one is strongly agreeing this statement.

[40]
Table 4.17: selling
selling tickets increase the morale of the
disabled people

Particulars Number
Strongly agree 7
agree 36
No answer 14
disagree 1
Strongly disagree 2
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.17: selling tickets increase the morale of the

disabled people

40 36
35
30
number

25 14
20 7
15 1 2
10
5
0

particulars

Interpretation: 36 respondents agree that selling lottery tickets

increase the morale of the disabled people. Number of respondents
disagree is very less

[41]
Table 4.18: help unskilled personnel to find daily income

particulars Number
Strongly agree 27
agree 27
No answer 3
disagree 2
Strongly disagree 1
Total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.18: help unskilled personnel to find daily

income

27 27
30
25
20
NUMBER

15
10 3 2 1
5
0
Strongly agree No disagree Strongly
agree answer disagree
PARTICULARS

Interpretation: From this graph we can clearly state that more

respondents believe that selling lottery tickets have helped many
unskilled personnel to find their daily income only 3 respondents dis
agree that statement.

[42]
 Table 4.19: Buying
Buying tickets to try fortune

particulars Number
Strongly agree 5
agree 25
No answer 14
disagree 12
Strongly disagree 4
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.19: B
Buying tickets to try fortune

25
25

20
14
15 12
number

10
5 4
5

0
Strongly agree No disagree Strongly
agree answer disagree
particulars

Interpretation: 25 respondents are buying tickets just to try their

fortune.14 people have no answer for this questions and 12
respondents disagree
disa this statement

[43]
 Table 4.20: prefer to purchase “Karunya lottery”

Particulars Number
Strongly agree 5
agree 25
No answer 14
disagree 12
Strongly disagree 4
60
Total

(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.20: prefer to purchase “Karunya lotte

lottery”
ry”

25
25
20 14
12
number

15
10 5 4
5
0
Strongly agree No disagree Strongly
agree answer disagree
particulars

Interpretation: From this graph we can interpret that 25

respondents agree that they prefer to purchase karunya lottery. 14
respondents have no answer and 4 people strongly dis agree that
they prefer to purchase karunya lottery.

[44]
Table 4.21: Small
S lottery
tery sellers satisfied with their
occupation

particulars Number
Strongly agree 6
agree 25
No answer 16
disagree 12
Strongly disagree 1

Total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure4.21: S
Small
mall lottery sellers satisfied with their
occupation

30
25
20
number

15
25
10
16
5 12
6
0 1
Strongly agree No answer disagree Strongly
agree disagree
particulars

Interpretation:: 25 respondents agree that small lottery sellers are

satisfied with their occupation. Only 1 respondent say that lottery
sellers are
re not satisfied with their job.

[45]
 Table 4.22: Irritated
I when sellers compel

particulars Number
Strongly agree 4
agree 19
No answer 22
disagree 13
Strongly disagree 2

Total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.22: IIrritated when sellers compel

Strongly
agree
22 agree
30 13
19 No answer
2
20
number

Strongly disagree
10 4 No answer

Strongly agree
0
particulars

Interpretation: Most number of respondents have no answer

forthis
this question.19 respondents agree that they are irritated
irritated
when sellers compel to Purchase lottery tickets.

[46]
 Table 4.21: purchasing ticket is a waste of money

particulars Number
Strongly agree 1
Agree 5
No answer 22
disagree 25
Strongly disagree 7

Total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure4.21: purch
purchasing
asing ticket is a waste of money

25
25 22

20
15
number

10 7
5
5 1
0
Strongly Agree No disagree Strongly
agree answer disagree
particulars

Interpretation:: From the above graph it is clearly pointed that 25

respondents says that purchasing lottery ticket is not a waste of money.
Only 5 respondents agreeing that purchasing ticket is a waste of
money.

[47]
Table 4.22:
.22: happy when purchase tickets from disabled
people

particulars Number
Strongly agree 24
Agree 34
No answer 1
disagree 0
Strongly disagree 1

total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.22: happy when purchase tickets from disabled

people

34
35
30 24
25
number

20
15
1
10 1
0
5
0
Strongly Agree No answer disagree Strongly
agree disagree
particulars

Interpretation:
rpretation: 58 respondents feel happy when they purchase
tickets from disabled sellers’ .only one respondent dis agree that.

[48]
 Table 4.23: Buying
B tickets to help them

particulars Number
Strongly agree 23
Agree 30
No answer 4
disagree 2
Strongly disag
disagree 1

Total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.23: Buying

B tickets to help them

35
30
30

25 23
Strongly agree
20 Agree
NUMBER

No answer
15
disagree
10
Strongly disagree
4
5 2
1
0
PARTICULARS

Interpretation: 30 respondents agree and 23 respondents strongly

agree that they buy tickets from challenged to help them in some ways.
Only 1 respondent strongly dis agree that.

[49]
 Table 4.24: Not
N bother about getting prizes

particulars Number
Strongly agree 9
Agree 29
No answer 11
disagree 8
Strongly disagree 3
Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure4.24: N
Not bother about getting prizes

29
30
25
20
number

15 11
9 8
10
3
5
0
Strongly Agree No disagree Strongly
agree answer disagree

particulars

Interpretation
Interpretation: 29 respondents
ndents don’t bother about getting prizes
when they purchase tickets from the challenged. Only 3 respondents
strongly disagree that.

[50]
 Table 4.25: Buying
Buying tickets from challenged because of
compassion

particulars Number
Strongly agree 8
Agree 32
No answer 13
disagree 7
Strongly disagree 0

Total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure4.25: B
Buying
uying tickets from challenged because of
compassion

32
35
30
25
number

20 13
15 8 7
10
5 0
0
Strongly Agree No disagree Strongly
agree answer disagree
particulars

Interpretation: 32 respondents agree that many people buy lottery

from the challenged
lenged because Of compassion. 77respondents
pondents disagree
that statement.

[51]
Table 4.26: Buying
uying tickets because of sympathy

Particulars Number
Strongly agree 11
Agree 37
No answer 9
disagree 3
Strongly disagree 0

Total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.26: buying tickets because of sy

sympathy
mpathy

37
40
35
30
25
number

20
15 11
9
10
3
5 0
0
Strongly Agree No answer disagree Strongly
agree disagree
particulars

Interpretation: 37 respondents agree that when people see disabled

people selling lottery tickets, they buy because of sympathy. Only 3
respondents dis agree that.

[52]
Table 4.27: not a regular buyer but purchase from
challenged sellers

Particulars Number
mber
Strongly agree 14
Agree 28
No answer 8
Disagree 7
Strongly disagree 3

Total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.27: not a regular buyer but purchase from

challenged sellers

28
30

20 14
number

8 7
10 3
0
Strongly Agree No answer disagree Strongly
agree disagree
particulars

Interpretation: From the above graph we can find that 28

respondents
ents agree that they are not a regular buyer of lottery tickets,
but when they see challenged people selling lottery ticket, they will
buy.3 respondents strongly dis
disagree that.

[53]
 Table 4.28: keep up their dignity no by begging

Particulars Number
Strongly agree 43
Agree 12
No answer 5
disagree 0
Strongly disagree 0

Total 60
(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.28: keep up their dignity no by begging

43
45
40
35
30
NUMBER

25
20
12
15
10 5
5 0 0
0
Strongly Agree No disagree Strongly
agree answer disagree
PARTICULARS

Interpretation: 43 respondents appreciate the disabled people

selling lottery tickets because they keep up their dignity by not
begging.

[54]
 Table 4.29: Get
G rich quick game of chance

particulars Number
Strongly agree 21
Agree 23
No answer 10
disagree 2
Strongly disagree 4

Total 60

(Source: primary data)

Figure 4.29: G
Get rich quick game of chance

25

20

15
number

21 23
10

5 [VALUE]
2 4
0
Strongly Agree No disagree Strongly
agree answer disagree
particulars

Interpretation: 21 respondents strongly agree and 23 respondents

agree that lottery is a “get rich quick game of chance”.0nly 4
respondents strongly dis agree that.

[55]
Testing of hypothesis

1. H0: There is no significant association between providing support

to physically disabled people by buying tickets from them and
boosting up in their morale.
H1: There is significant association between providing support to
physically disabled people by buying tickets from them and
boosting up in their morale.

Chi-Square Test
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
q2 60 4.25 .571 2 5
q8 60 3.75 .816 1 5

Frequencies
q2
Observed N Expected N Residual
2 1 15.0 -14.0
3 1 15.0 -14.0
4 40 15.0 25.0
5 18 15.0 3.0
Total 60

[56]
 q8
Observed N Expected N Residual
1 2 12.0 -10.0
2 1 12.0 -11.0
3 14 12.0 2.0
4 36 12.0 24.0
5 7 12.0 -5.0
Total 60

Test Statistics
q2 q8
Chi-Square 68.400a 68.833b
df 3 4
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The

minimum expected cell frequency is 15.0.
b. . 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency is 12.0
The table above shows that the p value .000 is less than the .05
level of significance, thus the null hypothesis is rejected and
alternate hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there is significant
association between providing support to physically disabled
people by buying tickets from them and boosting up in their
morale. This indicates that the morale of physically disabled
people are boosted as they feel a sense of being self-relevant.

[57]
2. H0: there is no relation between the feeling of happiness on
purchase of lottery tickets from disabled people and sense of
compassion.
H1: there is relation between the feeling of happiness on purchase
of lottery tickets from disabled people and sense of compassion.
Chi-Square Test
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
q15 60 4.33 .681 1 5
q18 60 3.68 .854 2 5

Frequencies
q15
Observed N Expected N Residual
1 1 15.0 -14.0
3 1 15.0 -14.0
4 34 15.0 19.0
5 24 15.0 9.0
Total 60

q18
Observed N Expected N Residual
2 7 15.0 -8.0
3 13 15.0 -2.0
4 32 15.0 17.0
5 8 15.0 -7.0
Total 60

[58]
 Test Statistics
q15 q18
Chi-Square 55.600a 27.067a
df 3 3
Asymp. .000 .000
Sig.
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected
frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency
is 15.0.

As per the above table the p value .000 is less than the .05 level of
significance, thus the null hypothesis is rejected and alternate
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there is relation between the feeling
of happiness on purchase of lottery tickets from disabled people and
sense of compassion. It indicates that people are happy on purchase of
lottery tickets from disabled people because they are compassionate.

1. H0: there is no significant association between apathy

towards winning prize and sympathy towards disabled
people selling lottery tickets.
2. H1: there is significant association between apathy towards
winning prize and sympathy towards disabled people
selling lottery tickets.

[59]
 Chi-Square Test
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
q17 60 3.55 1.064 1 5
q19 60 3.93 .733 2 5

Frequencies
q17
Observed N Expected N Residual
1 3 12.0 -9.0
2 8 12.0 -4.0
3 11 12.0 -1.0
4 29 12.0 17.0
5 9 12.0 -3.0
Total 60

q19
Observed N Expected N Residual
2 3 15.0 -12.0
3 9 15.0 -6.0
4 37 15.0 22.0
5 11 15.0 -4.0
Total 60

Test Statistics

[60]
 q17 q19
Chi-Square 33.000a 45.333b
df 4 3
Asymp. .000 .000
Sig.
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected
frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency is
12.0.
b. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected
frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency is
15.0.

As per the above table the p value .000 is less than the .05 level of
significance, thus the null hypothesis is rejected and alternate
hypothesis is accepted. Therefore there is significant association
between apathy towards winning prize and sympathy towards
disabled people selling lottery tickets. It shows that people are not
concerned about the prize but purchase tickets as part of sympathy
towards disabled people.

5.1 Findings

[61]
 Number of male purchasing lottery tickets is more than females
 Most of the ticket buyers are in the age group of 40-50
 Major part of the buyers have only higher secondary education
 The monthly salary of most of the ticket buyers is between
10000-20000
 It is clear that most of the respondents buy tickets from
individuals
 The main aim of buying ticket is to get prizes and to help the
unemployed
 The disabled ticket sellers usually find at bus stands
 Major parts of the respondents buy tickets rarely or once in a
month
 The amount spent by the respondents to buy tickets is less than
500 in a month .only 2 respondents purchase tickets for more
than 500
 Most of the people buy tickets from authorized agents
 More respondents agree that they buy tickets from the poor
physically disabled men to support them
 The respondents buy lottery tickets not from same person
 Most of the respondents got some prizes earlier by buying
lottery tickets
 The buyers purchase tickets without much thought and care
 Major portion of the respondents don’t believe in gambling or
luck
 Most of the respondents disagree that the disabled people
should not sell lottery tickets they should do some other work
 Selling lottery tickets increase the morale of the disabled
people

[62]
 It is clear that the lottery buyers believe that selling lottery
tickets have helped many unskilled personnel to find daily
income for their family
 Most of the respondents buy tickets to try their fortunes
 Most of them prefer to purchase karunya lottery
 Only small number of respondents says that small lottery
sellers are not satisfied with their occupation
 More number of respondents agree that they are irritated when
the sellers compel them to buy the tickets
 Most of the respondents say that purchasing lottery tickets is
not a waste of money
 Major part of the respondents feel happy when they purchase
tickets from the disabled people
 Most of them buying tickets from the challenged because they
can help them in some ways
 More respondents don’t bother whether they will get prizes or
not when they buy tickets from the challenged person
 Many people buy tickets from the challenged because of
compassion
 When people see disabled people selling lottery tickets, they
buy because of sympathy.
 Most of them are not a regular buyer of lottery tickets, but
when they see challenged people selling lottery tickets, they
will buy
 They appreciate the disabled people selling lottery tickets
because they keep up their dignity by not begging.
 Many respondents agree that lottery is a get rich quick game of
chance

[63]
 There is significant association between providing support to
physically disabled people by buying tickets from them and
boosting up in their morale
 There is relation between the feeling of happiness on purchase
of lottery tickets from disabled people and sense of
compassion.
 There is significant association between apathy towards
winning prize and sympathy towards disabled people selling
lottery tickets.

[64]
5.2 Suggestions

 Large scale buying of tickets by agents should be dissuaded to

increase the employment opportunities. For this the discount
structure must be altered
 Incentives should be provided to the employees of the Kerala
state lotteries department depending on the performance of
each draw, so that they will be encouraged to work hard.
 Employment generation, being the employment of lottery,
should be given more attention. Rate of commission to agents
should be increased and agents who purchase less number of
tickets should be encouraged by offering increased rate of
commission than that offered to large purchasers.

[65]
5.3 Conclusion
This study is conducted among the people who buy lottery tickets
.This study clearly reveals the consumer behavior towards the
challenged lottery sellers. This study helps to know the different
factors that leads to purchase tickets from the challenged. It is clear
that even though most of the respondents are not a regular buyer of
lottery tickets, but they purchase tickets from the disabled because
of many reasons which has been found through the study. The
factors that influence the people to buy tickets from the poor
challenged lottery sellers is many. They buy because of sympathy,
compassion, to help them in some ways, to support them etc.

[66]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Johnson J.A. (1976), "An Economic Analysis of Lotteries,"
Canadian Tax Journal, 24(6), (November/December), 639-651.
2.
2. Walsh, James (1996), "Why Do People Play the Lottery ?,"
Consumers’ Research, 79 (March), 22-25
3. Thimmaiah, G. (1969), "State Lottery Schemes," A.I.C.
Economic Review, (March 15), 17- 20.
4. Mompilly Paul (1969), "Least Irritating Means of Revenue,"
The Economic Times, (July 9), 5. 2.
5. Chatterjee, S. (1995), "State Government Lotteries," Reserve
Bank of India Occasional Papers, 16(2), (June), 101-123.
6. Nelson, a (2001). ”Kerala state lotteries – A performance
analysis” Ph.D. thesis, Kerala university, Thiruvananthapuram
(unpublished).
7. Institute of social and economic change, Bangalore (1994),”
socio economic impact of lotteries”, Bangalore, p.56.
8. Narayan chambers, Ahmedabad (1989) “lottery buyers –study
of consumer profile”, Ahamedabad,p.33
9. Lal, R.N, and Muraleedharan, t.(1989) “a study of the behavior
of buyers as well as non-buyers of state lottery”, Indian
institute of management, Ahamadabad,p.64
10. Malayala Manorama daily (Malayalam), (30.12.1985), survey
on the spending behavior of lottery prize winners of
Trivandrum.
11. Rajan Varghese, Mathrubhumi daily (Malayalam), (02-05-
1999). “The Economics of lottery”.
12. Abdul Latheef Naha (29-08-2002), “Lottery sellers out of
luck”, the Hindu (daily).

[67]
13. Sumitha, N. (2002) “Mathrubhumi dhanakaryam” (weekly-
Malayalam), “ways in search of luck”, p.34.
14. Mathrubhumi (Malayalam) daily. Editorial, (05-06-98)
15. Kerala state lottery department (1997), “Kerala state lottery -30
years of achievement, Thiruvananthapuram, (1967-1997).
16. Kerala state lottery department (1999), “ban of lottery – is it
necessary in Kerala” Thiruvananthapuram.
 https://www.researchgate.net
 www.ijemr.net
 www.iosrjournals.org

[68]