Production Factors and Economic Success of Indian Gambling:
A Case Study on the Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort
Franz Rothlauf, Claus-Peter H. Ernst, Rafaél Rivera Azañedo
Working Paper 01/2014
March 2014
Working Papers in Information Systems
and Business Administration
Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz
Department of Information Systems and Business Administration
D-55128 Mainz/Germany
Phone +49 6131 39 22734, Fax +49 6131 39 22185
E-Mail: sekretariat[at]wi.bwl.uni-mainz.de
Internet: http://wi.bwl.uni-mainz.de
Abstract
With a market share of about 43 percent and yearly revenues of about $28 billion in fiscal 2012,
Indian casinos are a big player in the US gaming business. Following a resource-based approach,
this study investigates possible factors that contribute to the economic success of Indian gaming.
Indeed, the resource-based view claims that the economic success of a company is determined by its
privileged access to resources and efficient use of these resources — examples of these are:
exclusive legal rights and the four production factors, land, labor, capital, and knowledge. In this
sense, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 is the most relevant success factor for Indian
casinos, granting them a sustained competitive advantage over commercial, non-Indian casinos. In
addition, Indian casinos that have privileged access to and make efficient use of the four production
factors, land, labor, capital, and knowledge, will also have a competitive advantage over their
competitors, which can lead to economic success. In this paper, we present a case study of the
Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort, a succesful Indian casino owned by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, and study which factors may have been relevant to its economic success. The
casino is geographically well located near densely populated areas in the US, giving it a sustained
competitive advantage. However, the tribe had no privileged access to labor, capital, or knowledge.
To compensate this lack of resources, the tribe hired an external service provider (Harrah’s
Entertainment) in order to gain access to their management expertise and well-trained personel
(labor), the financial resources necessary for building up a casino (capital), and the expertise to
plan, build, manage, and operate the casino on reservation grounds (knowledge).
2
1 Introduction
Indian casinos are a big player in the US gaming business. In fiscal 2012, the annual revenues of
Indian casinos were about $28 billion (National Indian Gaming Commission, 2012), compared to
$37 billion for commercial, non-Indian casinos (American Gaming Association, 2013).
However, there are large differences in the economic success of different Indian casinos. Some
tribes, like the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, are very successful with their gaming businesses
(McGladrey & Pullen, 2009); others, such as the San Carlos Apache Tribe, are not (ABC News,
2014). Hence, we seek to identify the factors that contribute to the economic success of Indian
gaming.
Theoretically backed by the resource-based view, a theory that postulates that the economic success
of a company depends on gaining access to and making use of relevant resources, we identified
several factors that contribute to economic success of Indian casinos. The first is the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act of 1988 (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 1988), a law that allows Indian nations to
establish casinos on their reservations with only low federal influence. The second is the privileged
access to four production factors: land, labor, capital, and knowledge. The case study we carried out
on the possible success factors for Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort revealed that its geographic
location was most relevant to its success, whereas the other relevant production factors, labor,
capital, and knowledge for running a successful casino, were provided by external, non-Indian
service providers.
In the next section, we present the historical and theoretical background of Indian casinos. We
provide an overview of the history of the Indian Nations, outline their gaming history, discuss the
four classical input factors of a production process, and introduce the resource-based view. Based
on the resource-based view, we then identify relevant factors for successful Indian casinos, such as
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 as well as privileged access to the production factors:
land, labor, capital, and knowledge. Following this, we present a case study of the Harrah's
Cherokee Casino Resort. We conclude by summarizing our findings and giving an outlook on
future research.
2 Historical and Theoretical Background
2.1
Indian Tribes, Between Assimilation and Self-determination
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 forced most of the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi to leave
their homelands and resettle in western Oklahoma (Dörr, 2001; Gonzales, 2003). Later, in the mid19th century, the Indian Appropriation Act, the Homestead Act, and the Railroads Act, formed the
legal basis for the establishment of Indian reservations and the relocation of Native American tribes
from their traditional homelands to these areas. In 1887, the Dawes Act gave the US President the
right to survey tribal land and assign it to individual American Indians; excess land was used for
governmental purposes or sold to white settlers. As a result, Indian land was reduced by more than
half by 1932.
The resulting poverty in the reservations led to the Indian Reorganization Act, which was
introduced in 1934 (Cornell, Kalt, Krepps, & Taylor, 1998; Dörr, 1993). This law halted the forced
assimilation of Indians and allowed them to reorganize and form their own governments. Although
this allowed tribes to establish their own political authority, the Bureau of Indian Affairs formed in
1824 still had a lot of power over Indian assets and followed mostly non-tribal goals, leading to the
stagnation of Indian economies.
3
After this phase of partial independence of the tribes, the US government started the Indian
termination policy in the 1940s, which aimed to fully integrate and assimilate the Indians into the
US society by making them regular citizens (Gonzales, 2003). As a result, between 1953 and 1970,
more than 100 Indian tribes were banished, their lands were confiscated and sold, and their
population was resettled to urban areas: indeed, more than 90,000 Indians left the reservations and
went to the resettlement centers in Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and San Francisco.
This phase of forced integration ended with the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act of 1975 (Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 1975), which
gave established Indian tribes the authority to administer their own grants and funds (Cornell, Kalt,
Krepps, & Taylor, 1998). It also allowed them to make direct agreements with the US government
to, for example, organize services that were previously regulated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
As a result, from then on, tribes were given the right to act independently by establishing their own
businesses and building up their own economies.
2.2
Indian Gaming
Gaming is a long-standing tradition that holds both religious and cultural importance for Native
Americans (Gabriel, 1996). Playing games was often an essential part of ceremonies: it was used to
circulate and re-distribute belongings within and between Indian societies and to teach values to
children (Luna-Firebaugh & Tippeconnic Fox, 2010). After the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1975, the Indian nations came back to these traditions and transformed
some of them into Indian Gaming, which became their most successful business. After initial
uncertainties and multiple lawsuits concerning the legality of Indian Gaming, the US Congress
passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 that formulated a legislative basis for Indian
casinos and regulated their operation, revenues, etc. (Cornell, Kalt, Krepps, & Taylor, 1998).
Today, around 220 out of about 560 federally-recognized Indian tribes are engaged in commercial
gaming. They offer more than 350 gaming facilities and generated revenues of about $28 billion in
2012, making them a major player in the US gaming industry (National Indian Gaming
Commission, 2012). However, there are large differences between the different tribes regarding the
economic success of their casinos. Whereas some tribes, such as the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians, were able to set up very successful casinos that improve the welfare of its tribe members
(McGladrey & Pullen, 2009), others, such as the San Carlos Apache Tribe, do not benefit from their
casinos (ABC News, 2014). Indeed, the construction of the Apache Gold casino did not reduce the
unemployment rate within the tribe (rather, it increased from 42% in 1991 to 58% in 1997), nor did
the number of tribe members receiving welfare decrease (instead, it increased by 20%) (Grinols,
2009).
2.3
Production Factors
According to Adam Smith, the three classical primary input factors of a production process are
land, labor, and capital; nowadays knowledge is seen as a fourth factor (Wöhe & Döring, 2002).
Land can be considered as agriculture land, as a location for industry, or as an exploitation of
resources like coal or ore; labor is any human activity that creates goods or services; capital defines
goods that benefit the production process by enhancing/enabling the other production factors: labor,
land, and knowledge. Hence, capital does not only include monetary assets; it can also include
machines and tools since these make labor more efficient and, thus, more valuable. Finally,
successful combinations of land, labor, and capital are only possible if an organization possesses
the relevant technical-organizational knowledge, experiences, expertise, etc.
Based on these production factors, different approaches can be used to explain and measure the
success of organizations. One is the resource-based view, which deals with the competitive
advantages of companies based on their access to relevant resources.
4
2.4
Resource-based View
The basic idea of the resource-based view was developed in the late 1950s (Penrose, 1959).
However, the term and its corresponding theory were coined in the 1980s by Wernerfelt (1984),
Rumelt (1984), and Barney (1986). The resource-based view explains the economic success of a
company in terms of their access to relevant resources. These resources can be either tangible or
intangible assets, but the company must be able to control them (Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984;
Barney, 1991). Examples of these resources are the production factors land, labor, capital, and
knowledge, as well as exclusive legal rights.
A resource needs to have four properties in order to create and maintain a competitive advantage for
a company: It needs to be (1) of value, (2) rare, (3) inimitable, and (4) cannot have any valuable,
rare and imitable strategic substitutes (Barney, 1991). Furthermore, the mere possession of a
resource does not inevitably lead to the economic success of a company: the company also needs to
make effective and innovative use of the resource (Penrose, 1959).
In the following section, using the resource-based view as our theoretical foundation, we explain
that the success of Indian casinos is linked to the implementation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act, which gave Indian Gaming a competitive advantage over non-Indian commercial casinos. We
also reveal how differences in access and use of the four production factors introduced above can
explain differences in performance between different Indian gaming facilities.
3 The Economic Success of Indian Gaming
3.1
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
For many Indian tribes, gaming is a success story because it generates much of the financial
revenues used for the reservation and for funding programs. The Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1975 and, more specifically, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of
1988 provided Indian nations with self-determination and allowed them to establish casinos on their
reservations with only low federal influence, giving them multiple competitive advantages over
commercial casinos (Cornell, Kalt, Krepps, & Taylor, 1998).
One of these advantages is that federal and state regulators cannot force tribes to publicly disclose
or release financial information about their casinos (Anders, 1998). Also, Indian nations do not have
to pay taxes on their gaming revenues to the federal government or state and have further
advantages regarding the income tax for its Indian employees. Furthermore, Indian casinos do not
necessarily fall under state-specific regulations such as limitations on hours to sell liquor (Siegel,
2010). However, Indian casinos have to report their earnings from gaming or wagering as well as
their payments to independent contractors to the Internal Revenue Service, the US agency for tax
collection and tax law enforcement (Anders, 1998).
3.2
Production Factors
In addition to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a privileged access to the four production factors,
i.e., land, labor, capital, and knowledge, can contribute to the success of Indian casinos. Indeed, in a
general gaming context, In et al. (2009) found that the personnel (labor), the physical environment
(capital), and the games offered (capital) were important factors for the success of a casino.
Additionally, Lambert et al. (2010) found that the location (land) of the casinos was crucial to their
economic success. This result was confirmed by an Associated Press study (Associated Press,
2000), which found that “a few near major population centers have thrived while most others make
just enough to cover the bills” (Grinols, 2009, p. 38f).
5
In a casino, the service is the most visible element to customers (In, Fong, & Wong, 2009). Hence,
the casino management has to pay close attention to the services provided, ensuring that they meet
the needs of the customers, in order to increase customer share and customer loyalty. Likewise, the
atmosphere, cleanliness and physical attributes of a casino directly influence the comfort of
customers and their willingness to stay and play (In, Fong, & Wong, 2009). A large variety of
games can be attractive to a larger customer base since different cultures like to play different
games. Also, the best place to operate a casino is near metropolitan areas since cities have a large
commuting area and the necessary infrastructure (Lambert, Srinivasan, Dufrene, & Min, 2010).
Finally, managerial expertise (knowledge) can also be seen as an important driver of success since
only an experienced manager holds the necessary knowledge to successfully operate a casino.
These findings hold important implications for the success of Indian casinos. Indeed, Indian tribes
cannot freely choose any location for their casinos since their reservations are situated in fixed
areas. Therefore, the tribes that are unluckily situated far from a metropolitan area have
disadvantages with regards to the resource land and can do little to nothing about it. In this sense,
many Indian nations are unable to build a successful casino since their reservations are located in
rural, unpopulated areas (Native American Rights Fund, 2014). Furthermore, although Indians have
a long gaming tradition, this does not automatically qualify them to operate a casino (knowledge,
labor), nor does it mean they have the funds (capital) to build and maintain them.
Whereas Indian tribes cannot change the physical location of their reservation, a lack of access to
knowledge, labor, and capital is a less severe situation. Indeed, a lot of Indian Nations willing to
enter the gaming industry were initially supported financially and organizationally by wellestablished commercial gaming companies in order to address their original lack of knowledge,
labor, and capital in terms of building up and operating a gaming facility (Oakley, 2001). Typically,
external organizations build and operate the casinos and hotels on Indian reservations.
In the following paragraphs, we present a case study of the Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort, an
economically successful casino, which is owned by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians but was
built and is operated by Harrah’s Entertainment, a non-Indian, commercial gaming company.
4 Case Study: Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort
4.1
History of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Originally, the Cherokee People occupied parts of seven southeastern states in the US, including the
southern Appalachian and the Blue Ridge Mountains (Eastern Band of Cherokee, 2014). They
mainly settled along the broad river valleys in this area. In 1540, the tribe had its first contact with
Europeans. At the time, two distinct administrations — one responsible for war, the other for peace
— governed the Cherokee, and both reflected their religious beliefs (Eastern Band of Cherokee,
2014). Indeed, religion was the philosophical base for their way of life. Following their first
encounters with Europeans, the Cherokee quickly realized that survival was only possible if they
acculturated to the new European way of living.
Despite their acculturation to the culture of the white man, the Cherokee were removed from their
traditional territories to Oklahoma during the winter and spring of 1838-1839, in accordance with
the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Some individuals escaped the removal but henceforth remained in
a landless state. They were neither considered citizens of the US nor of their territories’ states and,
hence, were not allowed to buy or hold land. However, Will Thomas, an adopted Cherokee, bought
land under his adoptive name and let the fugitives live and work on it until the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians formed a corporation in 1870. This organization legally allowed them to hold
land and they were once again in control of their own land, which they called Qualla Boundary.
6
Nowadays, around 12,500 Cherokee live on the Qualla Boundary in Western North Carolina, as a
sovereign nation with a democratic government funded by a variety of sources including casino
profits.
4.2
Gaming History
Starting in the 1950s, the tourist industry became the most important income source for the Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians (Oakley, 2001). Both the Great Smoky Mountain National Park and the
Blue Ridge Parkway were located adjacent to the reservation and attracted many vacationers,
resulting in a tourist boom in the 1960s and 1970s. However, since the 1980s, a more intense
competition led to a decrease of revenue from tourism. As a result, the unemployment rate in the
reservation reached 40 percent and higher during the winters of the 1990s.
Following the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
wanted to build up a gaming industry on their reservation. Consequently, they started negotiations
with Harrah’s Entertainment to build, operate, and manage a 60,000 square foot casino on
reservation grounds. The casino, named Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort, opened in 1997 as the
first major casino in North Carolina. Since its opening in 1997, the casino has attracted between 3
and 4 million people each year.
Harrah’s Entertainment (which was renamed Caesars Entertainment Corporation in 2010) is a
commercial gaming company based in Nevada that operates multiple casinos and hotels in seven
countries including the US (Caesars Entertainment, 2014). As of January 2014, it has nearly 70,000
employees and annual revenues of $9 billion, making it one of the key players in the US casino
market and the international casino market.
In the original contract between the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and Harrah’s Entertainment,
Harrah’s was granted a management fee of 27.5 percent of the casino’s profits in the first year
(fiscal year 1998), gradually decreasing to 17 percent in the fifth year (fiscal year 2003) (Oakley,
2001). In exchange, Harrah’s guaranteed the tribe a minimum profit of $1 million a month for the
first five years and also agreed to donate $400,000 a year to the Cherokee’s educational programs
(Oakley, 2001). Furthermore, Harrah’s Entertainment’s mother company, Promus, organized a loan
of $100 million necessary for the construction of the casino. In the original contract, Harrah’s
Entertainment committed itself to favor tribal members during the hiring process at the new casino
(Oakley, 2001).
The original contract between the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and Harrah’s Entertainment
had a term of five years with the possibility of extending the contract at the end of the term. In
2003, the tribe renewed its contract with Harrah’s Entertainment until 2011. The management fee
was reduced to 8 percent, and further decreased to 5.5 percent in 2011 (Perdue, 2005). In 2011, the
management agreement was once again renewed until 2018 (Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort,
2011). Furthermore, the tribe expanded their business relationship and started to build another
casino in North Carolina’s Cherokee County in 2013. Set to open in 2015, it will also be also
managed and operated by Caesars Entertainment Corporation and will be named Harrah’s
Cherokee Valley River Casino & Hotel.
4.3
Economic Relevance
In fiscal 2009, the net assets of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (assets exceeding liabilities)
are about $557 million (McGladrey & Pullen, 2009). The tribe has total revenues of about $469
million and total expenses of around $392 million. With $407 million, around 87 percent of the
tribe revenues come from their gaming-related businesses (McGladrey & Pullen, 2009) including
the casino, food, hotel, retail, and showroom (Johnson Jr., Kasarda, & Appold, 2011). The
corresponding total operational expenses of the tribe for gaming-related business amount to
7
approximately $192 million (McGladrey & Pullen, 2009). Other revenues of the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians come from from governmental activities (around $54 million) and other businesstype activities (around $7 million).
In fiscal 2008, the Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort had total operating revenues of $442 million,
an increase from the revenues in 1998, which amounted to about $134 million (Johnson Jr.,
Kasarda, & Appold, 2011). Due to the financial crisis, in fiscal 2010, the total operating revenues
decreased to $385 million.
In 2008, the operational cost of $246 million for running the Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort
included $73.5 million for employees (salaries and benefits), management fees of $19.6 million
paid to Harrah’s, a $7.5 million contribution paid to the Cherokee Preservation Foundation, an outof-state capital spending of $68 million, and other out-of-state payments of $48 million (Johnson
Jr., Kasarda, & Appold, 2011). In addition to these operational costs, the Harrah's Cherokee Casino
Resort also paid $249.1 million (more than 50 percent of its revenues) to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians. Half of this tribal money is directly paid to the tribe members, leading to a yearly
income of around $10k for each tribe member. The other half of the disbursement is used for local
government expenses.
In accordance with the conditions of the contract, the management fees paid to Harrah’s
Entertainment declined over the years from $37 million in fiscal 1998 to around $20 million in
fiscal 2008. Vice versa, the share of revenues paid to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians grew
from around $43 million in fiscal 1998 to around $249 million in fiscal 2008.
In order to perform their services, the tribe employed 1,114 persons in 2009. In addition, the
Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort (including the casino and hotel) had 1,634 employees
(McGladrey & Pullen, 2009), 20 percent of which were members of the tribe (Johnson Jr., Kasarda,
& Appold, 2011).
In summary, the Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort is a successful casino that generates large
financial benefits for the tribe and tribe members. The economic success of the casino is
emphasized by the fact that the tribe is expanding its gaming business and opening a second casino
(Harrah’s Cherokee Valley River Casino & Hotel) in 2015.
4.4
Reasons for Economic Success
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act acts as the foundation for the success of the Harrah's Cherokee
Casino Resort since it provides multiple advantages over commercial casinos. Moreover, the casino
is located nearly densely populated areas: more than 14 million people can reach it within 200 miles
and over one half of the US population is no farther than 500 miles away (Oakley, 2001). This
advantageous location gives the Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort a sustained competitive
advantage.
Since the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians had neither the funds nor the management capacity or
experience to establish a casino business in 1997, they sought help from Harrah’s Entertainment,
an external gaming company. Harrah’s Entertainment had both access to capital as well as
managerial and organizational expertise to plan, build, operate, and manage a casino. Hence, by
establishing a contract with Harrah’s Entertainment, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians were
able to gain access to production factors they were lacking, i.e., labor, capital, and knowledge.
In summary, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, as for any Indian casino, is the basis for the
economic success of Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort. In addition, its advantageous location next
to densely populated areas makes it attractive for external companies, which can supply the Eastern
Band of Cherokees Indians with the know-how (knowledge, labor) and funds (capital) necessary to
build up a successful gaming business.
8
5 Conclusions and Future Work
Native Americans have faced hard times in the past. Only after the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
from 1988 were Indian tribes allowed to build up their own gaming businesses and thus improve the
welfare of their tribe members. We discussed possible factors that can contribute to the economic
success of Indian gaming and performed a case study of the Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort,
examining what the necessary factors for building a successful gaming business were.
The resource-based view explains the economic success of a company by their access to resources
that give a sustained competitive advantage. Examples of these are exclusive rights as well as the
access to, or efficient use of, production factors. We identified the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act as
the most relevant factor explaining the success of the Indian gaming industry. The law allows
federally-recognized Indian tribes to establish casinos on their reservation grounds with only low
federal influence, giving them multiple competitive advantages over commercial casinos, such as
not having to pay taxes on their gaming revenues. Hence, the law is the foundation of the success of
the Indian gaming industry.
Relevant production factors that allow companies to be successful are land, labor, capital, and
knowledge. In the case of the Eastern Band of Cherokees Indians, the tribe is geographically well
located near densely populated areas in the US with a large demand for entertainment and gaming
activities, giving the tribe a large sustained competitive advantage. However, the tribe initially had
no access to the other necessary and relevant resources: labor, capital, and knowledge. To gain
access to these resources, the tribe hired an external service provider (Harrah’s Entertainment) to
plan, finance, build, and operate the casino for the tribe on reservation grounds. Consequently,
Harrah’s Entertainment provided the management capacities and well-trained personnel (labor),
the financial resources necessary for building a casino (capital), and the expertise to plan, build,
manage, and operate a casino in a professional and attractive way (knowledge).
In future work, we want to extend our analysis to non-successful Indian casinos. The Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act provides big advantages to all Indian casinos in comparison to commercial
casinos. However we still do not know why some are less successful than others, or why some even
fail. The case of the successful gaming business of the Eastern Band of Cherokees Indians suggests
that location is relevant and that other relevant production factors can be brought in by external
organizations. Although the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act gives Indian casinos a strong
competitive advantage, external companies will tend not to invest in casinos in areas that are too far
away from customer demand.
Furthermore, we want to gain a better and more in-depth understanding of the relationship between
Indian Nations and external companies that help them build their gaming businesses. Despite the
large economic importance of Indian gaming in the US, it is unclear which factors influence Indian
decisions in terms of building or operating casinos. In this context, it would be interesting to study
relevant aspects such as: the influence of external gaming companies on a tribe’s decision to build a
gaming industry, and the financial (and other) conditions under which external companies are
willing to provide their services to Indian nations.
References
1. ABC News. (2014). Casinos Not Paying Off for Indians. Retrieved January 2, 2014, from
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95944.
2. American Gaming Association. (2013). State of the States: The AGA Survey Of Casino
Entertainment. Washington, D.C.: American Gaming Association.
3. Anders, G. C. (1998). Indian Gaming: Financial and Regulatory Issues. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science , 556 (1), pp. 98-108.
9
4. Associated Press. (2000). Casino Boom a Bust for Most Members of Indian Tribes: analysis
shows tribes gained little from profit growth. News-Gazette , Sept. 2, A1-A6.
5. Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy.
Management Science , 32 (10), pp. 1231-1241.
6. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management , 17 (1), pp. 99-120.
7. Caesars Entertainment. (2014). About Us. Retrieved January 2, 2014,
http://www.caesars.com/images/PDFs/About_Us_2013_Caesars_Entertainment.pdf.
from
8. Cornell, S., Kalt, J., Krepps, M., & Taylor, J. (1998). American Indian Gaming Policy and Its
Socio-Economic Effects. Cambridge: The Economics Resource Group, Inc.
9. Dörr, D. (1993). Savages and International Law. Law and State (47), pp. 7-27.
10. Dörr, D. (2001). Der schwierige Weg zur Autonomie - Indianernationen in Nordamerika
zwischen "termination" und "self-determination". In D. Dörr, U. Fink, C. Hillgruber, H.
Kempen, & D. Murswieck (Eds.), Die Macht des Geistes - Festschrift für Hartmut Schiedermair
(pp. 927-951). Heidelberg: Müller.
11. Eastern Band of Cherokee. (2014). History & Culture. Retrieved January 2, 2014, from
http://nc-cherokee.com/historyculture.
12. Gabriel, K. (1996). Gambler Way: Indian Gaming in Mythology, History, and Archaeology in
North America. Boulder, Colorado: Johnson Books.
13. Gonzales, A. A. (2003). Gaming and displacement: winners and losers in American Indian
casino development. International Social Science Journal , 55 (175), pp. 123-133.
14. Grinols, E. L. (2009). Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
15. Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort. (2011). Harrah's Cherokee Casino & Hotel and Caesars
Entertainment Officially Extend Contract Agreement for Seven More Years. Retrieved January
2, 2014, from http://www.harrahscherokee.com/images/non_image_assets/che_caesarscontract
10062011.pdf.
16. In, H., Fong, V., & Wong, I. K. (2009). Scale Development: Necessary Factors for the Key
Success of Casinos. Journal of Macau University of Science and Technology , 3 (1), pp. 49-59.
17. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. (1988). PL 100-497, October 17 1988.
18. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. (1975). PL 93-638, January 4 1975.
19. Johnson Jr., J. H., Kasarda, J. D., & Appold, S. J. (2011). Assessing the economic and noneconomic impacts of Harrah's Cherokee Casino, North Carolina. Chapel Hill: Frank Hawkins
Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
20. Lambert, T. E., Srinivasan, A. K., Dufrene, U. B., & Min, H. (2010). Urban location and the
success of casinos in five states. International Journal of Management and Marketing Research ,
3 (3), pp. 1-16.
21. Luna-Firebaugh, E. M., & Tippeconnic Fox, M. J. (2010). The Sharing Tradition: Indian
Gaming in Stories and Modern Life. Wicazo Sa Review , 25 (1), pp. 57-86.
22. McGladrey & Pullen. (2009). Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians: Financial and Compliance
Report - Year Ended September 30, 2009. Bloomington: McGladrey & Pullen.
23. National Indian Gaming Commission. (2012). Gaming Revenue Reports. Retrieved January 2,
2014, from http://www.nigc.gov/Portals/0/nigc%20uploads/media/teleconference/2012%20
gross%20gaming%20revenue%20trends.pdf.
10
24. Native American Rights Fund. (2014). Dispelling the Myths About Indian Gaming. Retrieved
January 2, 2014, from http://www.narf.org/pubs/misc/gaming.html.
25. Oakley, C. A. (2001). Indian Gaming and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. The North
Carolina Historical Review , 78 (2).
26. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley.
27. Perdue, T. (2005). The Cherokees. New York: Chelsea House Publishers.
28. Rumelt, R. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. Lamb, Competitive strategic
management (pp. 556-570). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
29. Siegel, S. H. (2010). Summary Report: Comparing the economic competitive advantages of
Indian run casinos located on sovereign lands in Western New York over other Hospitality
operations. New York: College of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Niagara University.
30. Wöhe, G., & Döring, U. (2002). Einführung in die Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre. 21.
Auflage. München: Vahlen.
31. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal , 5
(2), pp. 171-180.
11