Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp 233–263 | Cite as

The effects of gun control on crimes: a spatial interactive fixed effects approach

  • Wei Shi
  • Lung-fei Lee
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of right-to-carry laws on crimes. We relax the assumption that unobserved time effects have homogeneous impacts on states; therefore, states with right-to-carry laws may follow different time trends which might be stronger or weaker than those of other states including states with no right-to-carry laws. The heterogeneous time trends are modeled by a factor structure where time factors represent time-varying unobservables, and factor loadings account for their heterogeneous impacts across states. No assumption is imposed on the shape of the time trend. Crime statistics exhibit spatial dependence, and a state’s adoption of right-to-carry law may have external effects on its neighboring states. Using a dynamic spatial panel model with interactive effects, we find positive spatial spillovers in crime rates. Depending on a crime category, an average \(1\%\) reduction in crime rates in neighboring states can decrease crime rates by 0.069–0.287%, with property crimes exhibiting higher degrees of spatial dependence than violent crimes. We find that although the passage of right-to-carry laws has no significant effects on the overall violent or property crime rates, they lead to short-term increases in robbery and medium-term decreases in murder rates. The results are robust to the number of factors, a different sample ending point, and some alternative spatial weights matrices and model specifications.

Keywords

Spatial panel data Cross-sectional and spatial dependence Interactive fixed effects Crime 

References

  1. Abadie A, Gardeazabal J (2003) The economic costs of conflict: a case study of the basque country. Am Econ Rev 93(1):113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahn SC, Horenstein AR (2013) Eigenvalue ratio test for the number of factors. Econometrica 81(3):1203–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahn SC, Lee YH, Schmidt P (2013) Panel data models with multiple time-varying individual effects. J Econom 174:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson T, Hsiao C (1981) Estimation of dynamic models with error components. J Am Stat Assoc 76(375):598–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econom 68:29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayres I, Donohue JJ (2003) Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Stanf Law Rev 55:1193–1312Google Scholar
  9. Bai J (2003) Inferential theory for factor models of large dimensions. Econometrica 71(1):135–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bai J (2009) Panel data models with interactive fixed effects. Econometrica 77(4):1229–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bai J, Ng S (2002) Determining the number of factors in approximate factor models. Econometrica 70(1):191–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bailey N, Kapetanios G, Pesaran MH (2016) Exponent of cross-sectional dependence: estimation and inference. J Appl Econom 31:929–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baltagi BH, Pirotte A (2011) Seemingly unrelated regressions with spatial error components. Empir Econ 40:5–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Belloni A, Chernozhukov V, Hansen C, Kozbur D (2016) Inference in high dimensional panel models with an application to gun control. J Bus Econ Stat 34:590–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bhattacharjee A, Holly S (2011) Structural interactions in spatial panels. Empir Econ 40:69–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Black DA, Nagin DS (1998) Do right-to-carry laws deter violent crime? J Legal Stud 17:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Breitung J (2001) The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In: Baltagi BH, Fomby TB, Hill RC (eds) Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (Advances in econometrics, vol 15). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 161–177Google Scholar
  18. Bronars SG, Lott JR Jr (1998) Criminal deterrence, geographic spillovers, and the right to carry concealed handguns. Am Econ Rev 88(2):475–479Google Scholar
  19. Dezhbakhsh H, Rubin PH (1998) Lives saved or lives lost? The effects of concealed-handgun laws on crime. Am Econ Rev 88(2):468–474Google Scholar
  20. Du Z, Zhang L (2015) Home-purchase restriction, property tax and housing price in china: a counterfactual analysis. J Econom 188:558–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duggan M (2001) More guns, more crime. J Polit Econ 109(5):1086–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glaeser EL, Sacerdote B, Scheinkman JA (1996) Crime and social interactions. Q J Econ 111(2):507–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gobillon L, Magnac T (2016) Regional policy evaluation: interactive fixed effects and synthetic controls. Rev Econ Stat 98(3):535–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsiao C, Ching HS, Wan SK (2012) A panel data approach for program evaluation: measuring the benefits of political and economic integration of Hong Kong with mainland China. J Appl Econom 27:705–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econom 115:53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kapoor M, Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2007) Panel data models with spatially correlated error components. J Econom 140:97–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (1999) A generalized moments estimator for the autoregressive parameter in a spatial model. Int Econ Rev 40(2):509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2001) On the asymptotic distribution of the Moran I test statistic with applications. J Econom 104:219–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim D, Oka T (2014) Divorce law reforms and divorce rates in the USA: an interactive fixed-effects approach. J Appl Econom 29:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee L-F, Yu J (2010a) Estimation of spatial autoregressive panel data models with fixed effects. J Econom 154:165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee L-F, Yu J (2010b) A spatial dynamic panel data model with both time and individual fixed effects. Econom Theory 26:564–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee L-F, Yu J (2014) Efficient GMM estimation of spatial dynamic panel data models with fixed effects. J Econom 180:174–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. LeSage JP (2014) What regional scientists need to know about spatial econometrics. Rev Reg Stud 44:13–32Google Scholar
  34. LeSage JP, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. Taylor & Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lott JR, Mustard DB (1997) Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry concealed handguns. J Legal Stud 26:1–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moon HR, Weidner M (2015) Linear regression for panel with unknown number of factors as interactive fixed effects. Econometrica 83(4):1543–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Research Council (2005) Firearms and violence: a critical review. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Onatski A (2010) Determining the number of factors from empirical distribution of eigenvalues. Rev Econ Stat 92:1004–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pesaran MH (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74:967–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pesaran MH (2015) Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econom Rev 34:1089–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pesaran MH, Tosetti E (2011) Large panels with common factors and spatial correlation. J Econom 161:182–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sah RK (1991) Social osmosis and patterns of crime. J Polit Econ 99(6):1272–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shi W, Lee L-F (2017) Spatial dynamic panel data models with interactive fixed effects. J Econom 197:323–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Su L, Yang Z (2015) QML estimation of dynamic panel data models with spatial errors. J Econom 185:230–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vega SH, Elhorst JP (2015) The SLX model. J Reg Sci 55(3):339–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolfers J (2006) Did unilateral divorce laws raise divorce rates? A reconciliation and new results. Am Econ Rev 96(5):1802–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yu J, De Jong R, Lee L-F (2008) Quasi-maximum likelihood estimators for spatial dynamic panel data with fixed effects when both n and T are large. J Econom 146:118–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Economic and Social ResearchJinan UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations