By Benjamin Ferri and Lia Yin

Does inequality lead to more crime? We develop a new model that articulates how Poverty (the lower tail of the earnings distribution) and Earnings (the upper tail) enter into equilibrium crime rates. In our model, individuals in Poverty have less to lose in the context of criminal punishment, so are less averse to committing crimes in general. The presence of high Earnings (therefore things worth stealing) heightens the expected gain to offenders per crime - but specifically in terms of financial gain, not emotional gain. We estimate our model on a comprehensive panel of U.S. Commuting Zones (1980-2016), deploying novel Shift-Share instruments to correct for reverse causality (of crime on the earnings distribution). Corroborating our hypothesis, we find that high Earnings plays a much larger role in driving crimes that yield financial gain to the offender (various forms of theft) than it does for crimes of emotional gain; while Poverty is a driving force equally across both types of crime. In each case, not accounting for reverse causality would underestimate both effects, often by more than double.

Unpublished paper, 2022. 50p.

By Fabio Sánchez, Jairo Nunez, and Francois Bourguignon

Inequality has always been taken as a major explanatory factor of the rate of crime. Yet, the evidence in favor of that hypothesis is weak. Pure cross-sectional analyses show significant positive effects but do not control for fixed effects. Time series and panel data point to a variety of results, but few turn out being significant. The hypothesis maintained in this paper is that it is a specific part of the distribution, rather than the overall distribution as summarized by conventional inequality measures, that is most likely to influence the rate of (property) crime in a given society. Using a simple theoretical model and panel data in 7 Colombian cities over a 20 year period, we design a method that permits identifying the precise segment of the population whose relative income best explains time changes in crime.

Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad de los Andes–Facultad de Economía–CEDE, 2003. 23p.

By Ted Enamorado, Luis-Felipe López-Calva, Carlos Rodríguez-Castelán, and Hernán Winkler

The relationship between income inequality and crime has attracted the interest of many researchers, but little convincing evidence exists on the causal effect of inequality on crime in developing countries. This paper estimates this effect in a unique context: Mexico's Drug War. The analysis takes advantage of a unique data set containing inequality and crime statistics for more than 2,000 Mexican municipalities covering a period of 20 years. Using an instrumental variable for inequality that tackles problems of reverse causality and omitted variable bias, this paper finds that an increment of one point in the Gini coefficient translates into an increase of more than 10 drug-related homicides per 100,000 inhabitants between 2006 and 2010. There are no significant effects before 2005. The fact that the effect was found during Mexico's Drug War and not before is likely because the cost of crime decreased with the proliferation of gangs (facilitating access to knowledge and logistics, lowering the marginal cost of criminal behavior), which, combined with rising inequality, increased the expected net benefit from criminal acts after 2005.

Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2014. 31p.

By Stan Baker.

Republished, by permission, from the American Magazine for April, 1907, the first of a series called “Following the Color Line,” now being published in that magazine.

American Magazine. (1907) 31 pages.

By V. M. Masten.

If a thief will have it no other way than to be a thief, then control of him, and not his social rehabilitation, must be the desideratum.”

Boston Gorham Press (ca. 1922) 238 pages.

By Horst Entorf and Hannes Spengler

According to the European Parliament, unemployment, social disintegration, the lack of an integrative policy, and the worsening of urban services and living conditions cause frustration and despair, especially among economically and socially disadvantaged groups, and constitute unfavourable conditions that might lead to delinquent behaviour. Furthermore increasing poverty and inequality are supposed to be crime-enhancing factors. Based on this view, the European Commission has put out to tender a research project titled "Development and validation of scientific indicators of the relationship between criminality, social cohesion and economic performance" which has been executed by ZEW during the period 1/12/1998 - 29/2/2000. The present publication provides the results obtained from this project. The study intends to contribute to a better understanding of the interactions between criminality, economic performance and social cohesion. We try to achieve this aim by evaluating the existing economic and criminological research (with a special focus on quantitative research) and by carrying out own empirical investigations on the basis of a panel consisting of national time series from the 15 EU member states, an international cross-section of nations and an unique set of regional panel data originating from eight EU member states. Our empirical results about causes of crime reveal the crime reducing potential of intact family values. A smaller number of divorces and earlier marriage significantly reduce delinquency. By the same token, less efficient child care as a consequence of lacking family cohesion might explain the crime enhancing effects found for increasing female labour force participation rates. Further evidence supporting the interdependence of crime and the labour market show up in significant parameter estimates for indicators of unemployment, fixed-term contracts and part-time working. Furthermore, we find that higher wealth is associated with higher property crime rates and more drug-related offences, and that in turn drug offences foster the incidence of property crime.

Mannheim: ZEW- Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, 2000. 213p.

By John Braithwaite.

How can power over others be transformed to ‘power with’? It is possible to transform many institutions to build societies with less predation and more freedom. These stretch from families and institutions of gender to the United Nations. Some societies, times and places have crime rates a hundred times higher than others. Some police forces kill at a hundred times the rate of others. Some criminal corporations kill thousands more than others. Micro variables fail to explain these patterns. Prevention principles for that challenge are macrocriminological.

Freedom is conceived in a republican way as non-domination. Tempering domination prevents crime; crime prevention reduces domination. Many believe a high crime rate is a price of freedom. Not Braithwaite. His principles of crime control are to build freedom, temper power, lift people from poverty and reduce all forms of domination. Freedom requires a more just normative order. It requires cascading of peace by social movements for non-violence and non-domination. Periods of war, domination and anomie cascade with long lags to elevated crime, violence, inter-generational self-violence and ecocide. Cybercrime today poses risks of anomic nuclear wars.

Braithwaite’s proposals refine some of criminology’s central theories and sharpen their relevance to all varieties of freedom. They can be reduced to one sentence. Strengthen freedom to prevent crime, prevent crime to strengthen freedom.

Canberra: Australian National University Press, 2022. 814p.