Blog Post May 4
Each of the
two articles are very closely related to Chapter 4 of Freakonomics. Each of the
three sources takes a close look at the relationship between legalized abortion
and the declining crime rates. Freakonomics along with the Levitt’s article, to
no surprise, tell a very similar story. Each of these works was written by
Levitt’s which describes the similarities in both context and structure. The
third article which is a critique of Levitt’s study finds some problems with
the methodology of Levitt’s paper.
Like
Freakonomics in the Levitt article, finds that legalizing abortion has lead to
a declining crime rate. His explanation for this assumption is that a
decreasing number of unwanted births will lead to less criminal activity in the
future. The reasoning behind this explanation is that children who are born
against the will of their mother will receive less adequate parenting (prenatal
care, single family homes, experiencing poverty) resulting in an increased probability
of criminal activity in their future. (This assumption supported in the
readings) This is described in Levitt’s paper as the possibility that abortion
has a disproportionate effect on the births of those who are most at risk of
engaging in criminal behavior. (Levitt, Donohue, 381) Levitt’s most sound
description for the relationship between decreased criminal activities in
relationship to legalized abortion is the overall decrease in cohort size
following the legalization.
Within his
study Levitt uses three different regressions to look at different
relationships between abortion and crime. This first regression takes a look at
abortion and crime on the national scale. Levitt is able to divide
post-abortion legalization children into cohorts by age. This is what allows
him to see the gradual effect the law has as time goes by. To do this he was
able to design an index that reflected the effect of all previous abortions on
crime in a particular year. (Levitt and
Donohue, 394) He then tested early legalized states against the rest of the
U.S. at a particular year. Finally he
uses a panel analysis to relate state abortion rates after Roe v. Wade to state
level changes in crime over the period from 1985 through 1997. (Levitt and
Donohue, 400) For each of these test he found that they were significantly
relevant for his hypothesis that legalized abortion has lead to declining crime
rates.
Foote and
Goetz look at the same relationship but find some potential problems in the way
Levitt’s was analyzing data. Their thesis was set to evaluate if the declining
crime rate was due to other factors besides abortion. Their first problem was
that Levitt’s was missing a key set of regressors because of a computer coding
error. Also the Levitt’s regressions do not model arrests in per capita terms.
After correcting for the errors they found that the same regressions were not
significant.
In my
opinion, the Levitt’s article still holds weight. The Foote and Goetz
article helps make this conclusion for
me. Depending on how you manipulate the data you will get a different answer.
In my opinion the Levitt ideas make absolute sense. The assumption that poverty
stricken, single mothers, who may not be great parents may influence children
to develop criminal habitats makes absolute logical sense to me.