Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 149–178 | Cite as

Specifying the Relationship Between Crime and Prisons

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Prison effectiveness Stationarity Cointegration Granger causality Panel data 

References

  1. Andrews DWK (1991) Heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimation. Econometrica 59:817–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baillie RT (1996) Long memory processes and fractional integration in econometrics. J Economet 73:5–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besci Z (1999) Economics and crime in the states. Econ Rev Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 84:38–56Google Scholar
  4. Black D, Nagin D (1998) Do right-to-carry laws deter violent crime? J Legal Stud 27:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumstein A, Cohen J (1973) A theory of the stability of punishment. J Crim Law Criminol Police Sci 64:198–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Hsieh P (1983) The duration of adult criminal careers. Final report. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 90:443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi I (2001) Unit root tests for panel data. J Int Money Bank 20:249–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, OHGoogle Scholar
  11. Cochrane D, Orcutt GH (1949) Application of least squares regression to relationships containing autocorrelated error terms. J Am Stat Assoc 44:32–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeBoef S, Granato J (1997) Near-integrated data and the analysis of political relationships. Am J Polit Sci 41:619–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeFina RH, Arvanites TM (2002) The weak effect of imprisonment on crime: 1971–1998. Soc Sci Quart 83:635–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeJong C (1997) Survival analysis and specific deterrence: integrating theoretical and empirical models of recidivism. Criminology 35:561–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dezhbakhsh H, Rubin P, Shepherd J (2003) Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? New evidence from postmoratorium panel data. Am Econ Rev 344:203Google Scholar
  16. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74:427–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donohue JJ, Levitt SD (2001) The impact of legalized abortion on crime. Quart J Econ 116:379–420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donohue J, Wolfers J (2005) Uses and abuses of statistical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Rev 58:787Google Scholar
  19. Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55:251–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geweke J, Porter-Hudak S (1988) The estimation and application of long memory time series models. J Time Ser Anal 4:221–238Google Scholar
  21. Geweke J, Meese R, Dent W (1983) Comparing alternative tests of causality in temporal systems: analytic results and experimental evidence. J Economet 21:161–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37:424–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Granger CWJ, Newbold P (1974) Spurious regressions in econometrics. J Economet 2:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenberg DF, West V (2001) State prison populations and their growth, 1971–1991. Criminology 39:615–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greene WH (2002) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Guilkey DK, Salemi MK (1982) Small-sample properties of three tests for Granger-causal ordering in a bivariate stochastic system. Rev Econ Stat 64:668–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hadri K, Larsson R (2005) Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data where the time dimension is finite. Economet J 8:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison PM, Beck AJ (2006) Prisoners in 2005. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Hassler U (1993) Regression of spectral estimators with fractionally integrated time series. J Time Ser Anal 14:369–380Google Scholar
  30. Hassler U, Wolters J (1995) Long memory in inflation rates: international evidence. J Bus Econ Stat 13:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 365–383Google Scholar
  32. Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Economet 115:53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacobs D, Carmichael JT (2001) The politics of punishment across time and space: a pooled time-series analysis of imprisonment rates. Soc Forces 80:61–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johansen S, Juselius K (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 52:169–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Judson RA, Owen AL (1999) Estimating dynamic panel data models: a guide for macroeconomists. Econ Lett 65:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kennedy P (2004) A guide to econometrics, 5th edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. Kiviet JF (1995) On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models. J Economet 68:53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kovandzic TV, Vieraitis LM (2006) The effect of county-level prison population growth on crime rates. Criminol Public Pol 5:213–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kwiatkowski D, Phillips PCB, Schmidt P, Shin Y (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. J Economet 54:91–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levitt SD (1996) The effect of prison population size on crime rates: evidence from prison overcrowding litigation. Quart J Econ 111:319–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liedka RV, Piehl AM, Useem B (2006) The crime-control effect of incarceration: does scale matter? Criminol Public Pol 5:245–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lott J (1998) More guns, less crime: understanding crime and gun-control laws. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  43. MacKinnon JG (1996) Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. J Appl Economet 11:601–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maddala GS, Wu S (1989) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 61:631–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maeshiro A (2000) An illustration of the bias of OLS for Y t = λY t−1 + U t. J Econ Educ 31:76–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marvell TB, Moody CE Jr (1994) Prison population growth and crime reduction. J Quant Criminol 10:109–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marvell TB, Moody CE (2001) The lethal effects of three-strikes laws. J Legal Stud 30:89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Muller UK (2005) Size and power of tests for stationarity in highly autocorrelated time series. J Economet 128:195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Newey WK, West KD (1987) A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55:703–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nickell S (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49:1417–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Osterwald-Lenum M (1992) A note with quantiles of the asymptotic distribution of maximum likelihood cointegration rank test statistics. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 54:461–472Google Scholar
  52. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. J Appl Economet 22:265–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pierce DA (1977) Relationships—and the lack thereof—between economic time series, with specific reference to money and interest rates. J Am Stat Assoc 72:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raphael S, Winter-Ebmer R (2001) Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. J Law Econ 44:259–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rose DR, Clear TR (1998) Incarceration, social capital, and crime: examining the unintended consequences of incarceration. Criminology 36:441–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Said SA, Dickey DA (1984) Testing for unit roots in autoregressive moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika 71:599–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sargent TJ (1976) A classic macroeconomic model for the United States. J Polit Econ 84:207–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwert GW (1989) Tests for unit roots: a Monte Carlo investigation. J Bus Econ Stat 7:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sims CA (1972) Money, income, and causality. Am Econ Rev 62:540–552Google Scholar
  60. Smith KB (2004) The politics of punishment: evaluating political explanations of incarceration rates. J Polit 66:925–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Snedecor GW, Cochrane WG (1980) Statistical methods, 7th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IAGoogle Scholar
  62. Spelman W (1994) Criminal incapacitation. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Spelman W (2000) The limited importance of prison expansion. In: Blumstein A, Wallman J (eds) The crime drop in America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  64. Spelman W (2005) Jobs or jails? The crime drop in Texas. J Pol Anal Manage 24:133–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stock JH, Watson MW (1988) Testing for common trends. J Am Stat Assoc 83:1097–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thornton DL, Batten DS (1985) Lag-length selection and tests of Granger causality between money and income. J Money Credit Bank 17:164–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tremblay P (1986) The stability of punishment: a follow-up of Blumstein’s hypothesis. J Quant Criminol 2:157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  69. Western B (2006) Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Witt R, Witte A (2000) Crime, prison, and female labor supply. J Quant Criminol 16:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public AffairsUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations