The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime

[kurosh]

Freakonomics says crime dropped in NY from the 1980s-1990s because of abortions.

The Tipping Point says crime dropped in the same time period because they cracked down on lesser offenses. Freakonomics addresses this point specifically and says it was a minor reason.

Does anyone have more knowledge on this or an educated opinion on which might be more true?

[NT!]

i have been meaning to read both of these books for a while now, so i am going to d/l them and i'll try to read the relevant chapters today.

the position taken by the tipping point is pretty much the party line of giuliani types here in NYC, i don't think it's particularly scientific, and i'm sure there are other demographic and economic factors in play.

[Shadowrun]

I've only read the tipping point theory behind this.

What is the Freakonomics reasoning behind it?

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I've only read the tipping point theory behind this.

What is the Freakonomics reasoning behind it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasoning is that people who have abortions are in the same demographics that produce criminals, and that a lower birthrate amongst these people produced less criminals. The reason it took 20 odd years after roe v wade for this to happen is that 9 year olds tend to not be very good at carjacking.

wiki on it

[SNOWBALL]

I've heard it argued in politics that other cities had tried to crack down on lesser offenses prior to the nineties and their results were poor. Furthermore, the crime drop in the nineties was nationwide, whereas the Giuliani lesser crime crackdown was specific to NY.

[NT!]

reading freakonomics right now, one thing that i think is very poor about the chapter is his reliance on something resembling rational choice theory. he assumes that humans - even criminals and other deviants - respond to incentives with full understanding of the reasons for their actions, and that they gather all available info on potential outcomes and analyze it rationally. little or no mention of other influences on human behavior, such as culture, mass media, biology, social structure, etc.

his citations are also woefully inadequate, and poorly organized. i have written undergraduate term papers with more thorough references.

[NU Star]

[ QUOTE ]
reading freakonomics right now, one thing that i think is very poor about the chapter is his reliance on something resembling rational choice theory. he assumes that humans - even criminals and other deviants - respond to incentives with full understanding of the reasons for their actions, and that they gather all available info on potential outcomes and analyze it rationally. little or no mention of other influences on human behavior, such as culture, mass media, biology, social structure, etc.

his citations are also woefully inadequate, and poorly organized. i have written undergraduate term papers with more thorough references.

[/ QUOTE ]


Isn't it basically a footnote of economics that people often don't act rationally, but assuming rationality creates the most accurate predictive models?

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't it basically a footnote of economics that people often don't act rationally, but assuming rationality creates the most accurate predictive models?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not an expert on economics, so i won't dispute this claim... but when you exit the realm of economics and start looking at human behavior and psychology, assuming rationality is a serious error at times.

where crime falls on that spectrum is debatable.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't it basically a footnote of economics that people often don't act rationally, but assuming rationality creates the most accurate predictive models?


[/ QUOTE ]

In some fields, certainly. In decision theory, certainly not.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Isn't it basically a footnote of economics that people often don't act rationally, but assuming rationality creates the most accurate predictive models?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not an expert on economics, so i won't dispute this claim... but when you exit the realm of economics and start looking at human behavior and psychology, assuming rationality is a serious error at times.

where crime falls on that spectrum is debatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Economics can be defined as the study of rational behavior.