In,
“The Impact
of Legalized Abortion on Crime,” Steven Levitt and John Donohue further argue the same phenomenon that Levitt argues in chapter
4 of Freakonomics. Through statistics they present a causal argument that
because the mothers who are having the abortions are unfit for parenting, for a
variety of reasons, would have given birth to a child that had a high
probability of becoming a criminal. The authors provide data and regressions in
their article to show the grounding of the abortion theory. They mention other factors that
decrease crime rates but do not believe they would cause a sharp reduction in
crime. In Chapter 4 Levitt compares
and analyze other theories of crime reduction to show that the abortion theory
has the most significant impact.
Christopher
Foote and Christopher Goetz argue the validity of Levitt’s hypothesis about
increased rates of abortion as a potential cause for reduced crime rates. They find errors in Levitt’s data as
well as his regression that are skewing the relationship. Specifically, they
find that using the method of cross-state rather
than within-state comparisons of crime data caused a misrepresentation of the
facts.
They also believe that a per-capita variable for crime rates instead of the
total arrests variable that they used would have lessened the statistical
significance on the relationship with abortion.
These two articles are closely related
to what we read in Freakonomics and bring up an interesting theory, regardless
of its validity. Even though Foote
and Goetz argue the accuracy of Levitt’s findings, it still could have some
power in telling the story of crime reduction.
No comments:
Post a Comment