The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

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?

Re: The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

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.

Re: The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

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

What is the Freakonomics reasoning behind it?

Re: The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

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.

Re: The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

[ 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

Re: The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

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.

Re: The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

[ 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?

Re: The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

one thing that freakonomics correctly points out is that much of the crime drop in NYC began as much as 4 years before rudy took office and continued after bratton quit as police commissioner. he also points out that the size of the NYPD grew by 45% during the same time, and that this probably accounts for a good chunk of the decline in violent crime.

(many of those new cops were hired by david dinkins, btw)

there is some data that makes the abortion argument compelling. the nationwide drop in crime came about 17 years after roe v. wade - right around the time that about 1.6 million babies a year stopped being born. states that legalized abortion prior to roe v. wade experienced an earlier drop in crime than those that didn't. comparing abortion rates and crime rates, and controlling for other demographic factors like state economies and police resources, revealed a similar correlation.

i haven't reviewed levitt's sources for this argument, but even if one accepts it you have to look at several things

1. even in his intepretation, abortion only accounts for a fraction of the crime drop

2. attitudes about abortion and legal struggles related to abortion may or may not reflect demographic / economic circumstances in states where these changes took place, and those circumstances may have had a more significant impact overall than abortion alone.

judging by how poorly this chapter is referenced i have no reason to trust levitt's methodology. however, even if he is overstating his case i think there is some merit to his argument, and i don't buy much into the giuliani 'broken window' theory in the tipping point.

Re: The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

[ 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.

Re: The Tipping Point + Freakonomics re: crime
 

[ 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.