It is argued that the analytical comparison of gambling regulatory frameworks
across jurisdictions requires the identification of salient dimensions to provide the basis for
such. It is further suggested that governmental ‘conflict of interest’ might provide a useful
dimension for such comparison, as operationalised by concomitant EGM harm and
government dependence criteria. The same ‘conflict of interest’ criteria are then suggested
as a guide for gambling regulation within single jurisdictions, this being named the ‘Public
Accountability Approach.’ These points are discussed within broader reference to lines and
webs of harm production within a public health analysis. Broader reference is also made to
the proper role of government within contemporary democracy.