Specifying the Relationship Between Crime and Prisons

Journal of Quantitative Criminology - Tập 24 - Trang 149-178 - 2008
William Spelman1
1Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA

Tóm tắt

There is no scholarly consensus as to the proper functional form of the crime equation, particularly with regard to one critical, explanatory variable—prison population. The critical questions are whether crime and prison rates must be differenced, whether they are cointegrated, and whether they are simultaneously determined—whether crime and prison cause one another. To determine the proper specification, different researchers have applied unit-root, cointegration, and Granger tests to very similar data sets and obtained very different results. This has led to very different specifications and predictably different implications for public policy. These differences are more likely to be due to the methods used, rather than to real differences among the data sets. When the best available methods are used to identify the proper specification for a panel of U.S. states, results are fairly clear. Crime rates and prison populations are close to unit-root; crime and prison are not cointegrated; crime clearly affects subsequent prison populations. Thus the best specification of the crime equation must rely on differenced data and instrumental variables. Alternative specifications run a substantial risk of spurious results.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Andrews DWK (1991) Heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimation. Econometrica 59:817–858 Baillie RT (1996) Long memory processes and fractional integration in econometrics. J Economet 73:5–59 Besci Z (1999) Economics and crime in the states. Econ Rev Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 84:38–56 Black D, Nagin D (1998) Do right-to-carry laws deter violent crime? J Legal Stud 27:209–219 Blumstein A, Cohen J (1973) A theory of the stability of punishment. J Crim Law Criminol Police Sci 64:198–207 Blumstein A, Cohen J, Hsieh P (1983) The duration of adult criminal careers. Final report. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM (1995) Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 90:443–450 Campbell JY, Perron P (1991) Pitfalls and opportunities: what economists should know about unit roots. NBER Technical Working Paper 100. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA Choi I (2001) Unit root tests for panel data. J Int Money Bank 20:249–272 Choi C-Y, Hu L, Ogaki M (2006) Robust estimation for structural spurious regressions and a Hausman-type cointegration test. Working paper. Ohio State University, Department of Economics, Columbus, OH Cochrane D, Orcutt GH (1949) Application of least squares regression to relationships containing autocorrelated error terms. J Am Stat Assoc 44:32–61 DeBoef S, Granato J (1997) Near-integrated data and the analysis of political relationships. Am J Polit Sci 41:619–640 DeFina RH, Arvanites TM (2002) The weak effect of imprisonment on crime: 1971–1998. Soc Sci Quart 83:635–653 DeJong C (1997) Survival analysis and specific deterrence: integrating theoretical and empirical models of recidivism. Criminology 35:561–576 Dezhbakhsh H, Rubin P, Shepherd J (2003) Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? New evidence from postmoratorium panel data. Am Econ Rev 344:203 Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74:427–431 Donohue JJ, Levitt SD (2001) The impact of legalized abortion on crime. Quart J Econ 116:379–420 Donohue J, Wolfers J (2005) Uses and abuses of statistical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Rev 58:787 Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55:251–276 Geweke J, Porter-Hudak S (1988) The estimation and application of long memory time series models. J Time Ser Anal 4:221–238 Geweke J, Meese R, Dent W (1983) Comparing alternative tests of causality in temporal systems: analytic results and experimental evidence. J Economet 21:161–194 Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37:424–438 Granger CWJ, Newbold P (1974) Spurious regressions in econometrics. J Economet 2:111–120 Greenberg DF, West V (2001) State prison populations and their growth, 1971–1991. Criminology 39:615–653 Greene WH (2002) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, New York Guilkey DK, Salemi MK (1982) Small-sample properties of three tests for Granger-causal ordering in a bivariate stochastic system. Rev Econ Stat 64:668–680 Hadri K, Larsson R (2005) Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data where the time dimension is finite. Economet J 8:55–69 Harrison PM, Beck AJ (2006) Prisoners in 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC Hassler U (1993) Regression of spectral estimators with fractionally integrated time series. J Time Ser Anal 14:369–380 Hassler U, Wolters J (1995) Long memory in inflation rates: international evidence. J Bus Econ Stat 13:37–45 Hurwicz L (1950) Least squares bias in time series. In: Koopmans TC (ed) Statistical inference in dynamic economic models. Cowles Commission Monograph no. 10. Wiley, New York, pp 365–383 Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Economet 115:53–74 Jacobs D, Carmichael JT (2001) The politics of punishment across time and space: a pooled time-series analysis of imprisonment rates. Soc Forces 80:61–91 Johansen S, Juselius K (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 52:169–210 Judson RA, Owen AL (1999) Estimating dynamic panel data models: a guide for macroeconomists. Econ Lett 65:9–15 Kennedy P (2004) A guide to econometrics, 5th edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Kiviet JF (1995) On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models. J Economet 68:53–78 Kovandzic TV, Vieraitis LM (2006) The effect of county-level prison population growth on crime rates. Criminol Public Pol 5:213–244 Kwiatkowski D, Phillips PCB, Schmidt P, Shin Y (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. J Economet 54:91–115 Levitt SD (1996) The effect of prison population size on crime rates: evidence from prison overcrowding litigation. Quart J Econ 111:319–351 Liedka RV, Piehl AM, Useem B (2006) The crime-control effect of incarceration: does scale matter? Criminol Public Pol 5:245–276 Lott J (1998) More guns, less crime: understanding crime and gun-control laws. University of Chicago Press, Chicago MacKinnon JG (1996) Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. J Appl Economet 11:601–618 Maddala GS, Wu S (1989) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 61:631–652 Maeshiro A (2000) An illustration of the bias of OLS for Y t = λY t−1 + U t . J Econ Educ 31:76–80 Marvell TB, Moody CE Jr (1994) Prison population growth and crime reduction. J Quant Criminol 10:109–140 Marvell TB, Moody CE (2001) The lethal effects of three-strikes laws. J Legal Stud 30:89–106 Muller UK (2005) Size and power of tests for stationarity in highly autocorrelated time series. J Economet 128:195–213 Newey WK, West KD (1987) A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55:703–708 Nickell S (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49:1417–1426 Osterwald-Lenum M (1992) A note with quantiles of the asymptotic distribution of maximum likelihood cointegration rank test statistics. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 54:461–472 Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. J Appl Economet 22:265–312 Pierce DA (1977) Relationships—and the lack thereof—between economic time series, with specific reference to money and interest rates. J Am Stat Assoc 72:11–26 Raphael S, Winter-Ebmer R (2001) Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. J Law Econ 44:259–283 Rose DR, Clear TR (1998) Incarceration, social capital, and crime: examining the unintended consequences of incarceration. Criminology 36:441–479 Said SA, Dickey DA (1984) Testing for unit roots in autoregressive moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika 71:599–607 Sargent TJ (1976) A classic macroeconomic model for the United States. J Polit Econ 84:207–238 Schwert GW (1989) Tests for unit roots: a Monte Carlo investigation. J Bus Econ Stat 7:147–160 Sims CA (1972) Money, income, and causality. Am Econ Rev 62:540–552 Smith KB (2004) The politics of punishment: evaluating political explanations of incarceration rates. J Polit 66:925–938 Snedecor GW, Cochrane WG (1980) Statistical methods, 7th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA Spelman W (1994) Criminal incapacitation. Plenum Press, New York Spelman W (2000) The limited importance of prison expansion. In: Blumstein A, Wallman J (eds) The crime drop in America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Spelman W (2005) Jobs or jails? The crime drop in Texas. J Pol Anal Manage 24:133–165 Stock JH, Watson MW (1988) Testing for common trends. J Am Stat Assoc 83:1097–1107 Thornton DL, Batten DS (1985) Lag-length selection and tests of Granger causality between money and income. J Money Credit Bank 17:164–178 Tremblay P (1986) The stability of punishment: a follow-up of Blumstein’s hypothesis. J Quant Criminol 2:157–180 Useem B, Piehl AM, Liedka RV (2001) The crime-control effect of incarceration: reconsidering the evidence. Final report. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC Western B (2006) Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation, New York Witt R, Witte A (2000) Crime, prison, and female labor supply. J Quant Criminol 16:69–85