marcusmarcusrc: (Default)
[personal profile] marcusmarcusrc
An interesting paper was brought to my attention today... remember the whole freakonomics thing about linking abortion rates to violent crime reductions 20 years later? Well, apparently, there may be another factor at work in the crime rate decreases of the past 2 decades: lead abatement.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf

Now, I admit that I am probably predisposed to think this is a good paper because it matches my preconceived notions of "EPA good! Pollution bad!" And I haven't really dug into the numbers. If you want the key results, I'd suggest reading the abstract and then skipping all the way to Table 6 on pg. 59 (the panel results data) and Figure 5 (pg. 70).



Violent crime has a positive relationship (p<0.05) to lead levels and per capita beer consumption and (p<0.10) concealed weapons laws. It has a negative relationship (p<0.05) to abortion and (p<0.10) to police presence per capita.

Property crime: positive (p<0.05): unemployment, concealed weapons, beer consumption. negative (p<0.05) abortion, poverty rate.

Murder: positive (p<0.05): unemployment. negative (p<0.05): abortion, police per capita, and (p<0.10) for poverty.

My thoughts:
Lead: There is a clear mechanism for action, and, for violent crime, what look like good statistics. However, I wonder why lead wouldn't have an effect on property crime or murder? (and the relationship for property crime is, if anything, negative).
Abortion: Looks like the freakonomics hypothesis continues to be statistically significant.
Per capita beer consumption: Reminds me of the rationale for the Temperance Movement.
Unemployment: Not surprising.
Police per capita: Not surprising (though one could imagine that higher crime areas would hire more police, which could dampen this correlation)
Poverty: very surprising, but perhaps due to covariation with unemployment? (and this leads to the question of how many of these variables are related to each other, and how well the statistical methodology handles that: given that the author focused on lead, I'm not sure how much to weigh any of the relationships for the other variables)
Concealed weapons: Interesting... I know that there is research on both sides of this argument.

Discuss?
From:
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
User
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

Profile

marcusmarcusrc: (Default)
marcusmarcusrc

September 2014

S M T W T F S
 123 456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 10:45 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios