[NT!]

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.