Ah hell, I doubt you will read it so I will cut and paste the naughty bit into the forum to annoy you, notice the last sentence:
<< We now review empirical research aimed at assessing the relationship between crime and employment,2 a necessary bridge between the theories and the program evaluations. This research has been conducted at many different levels of aggregation, including national time-series data, state and local cross-sectional data and individual-level data.
National level. A review by Chiricos (1986) finds that most national level analyses have yielded weak results on the crime-employment relationship. Freeman (1994) claims that this is primarily because of the weakness in the time-series statistical model with national data. One exception is a paper by Cook and Zarkin (1985). They report mixed results from an analysis of business cycles from 1933 to 1982. In general, crime has increased over the last 50 years. However, homicide rates did not vary systematically with the business cycle while the rate of increase in burglary and robbery has been higher during the economic downturns than during the upturns. This is consistent with the idea that low employment leads to an increased propensity to commit property crime while violent crime is driven by other factors. At the same time, they found that auto-theft was actually pro-cyclical--- auto-theft increased faster when the economy improved and more slowly when the economy declined. This is consistent with the idea that the opportunity for auto-theft increases when employment (and hence disposable income) increases. We shall present no other findings at this level of aggregation because it seems to provide least insight into those policy issues with which we are particularly concerned.
Community Level Chiricos does find, however, that at lower levels of aggregation (states, counties and cities) roughly half of all reported studies show a positive and statistically significant relationship between employment and crime, using post-1970 data.3 The fraction of positive results increases to almost 75 percent of all studies when property crimes are analyzed separately from violent crimes.
Individual level Analyses of individual level data have attracted more attention as these data have become available. Studies of the 1945 Philadelphia birth cohort have shown that unemployment is associated with crime (e.g., Wolfgang, Figlio, Sellin, 1972), a finding that is reported in numerous other studies. However the causality is uncertain. Sampson and Laub (1993) argue that employment per se or by itself does not reduce crime or increase social control; it is only stability, commitment and responsibility that may be associated with getting a job that has crime reducing consequences. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that the relationship is essentially spurious, reflection of a common third factor which they call the level of individual social control.
Economic choice theory is further supported by evidence showing that human capital influences earnings, and earnings influence recidivism by ex-offenders (Needels, 1996). Social control theory seems to have relevance, too, within the context of economic choice. Farrington et al. (1986) tie crime more directly to employment by examining the timing of crime and employment over almost 3 years for a sample of teenage males in England. They show that property crimes are committed more frequently during periods of joblessness. However, this relationship held only for those who were predisposed to crime (as reflected by self-reports on earlier criminal activity and moral values); otherwise spells of joblessness did not induce more criminal offending.
This brief review establishes that researchers have measured a relationship between crime and employment, and that a number of mechanisms, operating both at the individual and community level, may explain the relationship. >>
<< We now review empirical research aimed at assessing the relationship between crime and employment,2 a necessary bridge between the theories and the program evaluations. This research has been conducted at many different levels of aggregation, including national time-series data, state and local cross-sectional data and individual-level data.
National level. A review by Chiricos (1986) finds that most national level analyses have yielded weak results on the crime-employment relationship. Freeman (1994) claims that this is primarily because of the weakness in the time-series statistical model with national data. One exception is a paper by Cook and Zarkin (1985). They report mixed results from an analysis of business cycles from 1933 to 1982. In general, crime has increased over the last 50 years. However, homicide rates did not vary systematically with the business cycle while the rate of increase in burglary and robbery has been higher during the economic downturns than during the upturns. This is consistent with the idea that low employment leads to an increased propensity to commit property crime while violent crime is driven by other factors. At the same time, they found that auto-theft was actually pro-cyclical--- auto-theft increased faster when the economy improved and more slowly when the economy declined. This is consistent with the idea that the opportunity for auto-theft increases when employment (and hence disposable income) increases. We shall present no other findings at this level of aggregation because it seems to provide least insight into those policy issues with which we are particularly concerned.
Community Level Chiricos does find, however, that at lower levels of aggregation (states, counties and cities) roughly half of all reported studies show a positive and statistically significant relationship between employment and crime, using post-1970 data.3 The fraction of positive results increases to almost 75 percent of all studies when property crimes are analyzed separately from violent crimes.
Individual level Analyses of individual level data have attracted more attention as these data have become available. Studies of the 1945 Philadelphia birth cohort have shown that unemployment is associated with crime (e.g., Wolfgang, Figlio, Sellin, 1972), a finding that is reported in numerous other studies. However the causality is uncertain. Sampson and Laub (1993) argue that employment per se or by itself does not reduce crime or increase social control; it is only stability, commitment and responsibility that may be associated with getting a job that has crime reducing consequences. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that the relationship is essentially spurious, reflection of a common third factor which they call the level of individual social control.
Economic choice theory is further supported by evidence showing that human capital influences earnings, and earnings influence recidivism by ex-offenders (Needels, 1996). Social control theory seems to have relevance, too, within the context of economic choice. Farrington et al. (1986) tie crime more directly to employment by examining the timing of crime and employment over almost 3 years for a sample of teenage males in England. They show that property crimes are committed more frequently during periods of joblessness. However, this relationship held only for those who were predisposed to crime (as reflected by self-reports on earlier criminal activity and moral values); otherwise spells of joblessness did not induce more criminal offending.
This brief review establishes that researchers have measured a relationship between crime and employment, and that a number of mechanisms, operating both at the individual and community level, may explain the relationship. >>
Facebook
Twitter