Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 753–782 | Cite as

The Crime Kuznets Curve

  • Paolo BuonannoEmail author
  • Leopoldo Fergusson
  • Juan F. Vargas
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

Criminologists have long studied the relationship between economic conditions and crime. Empirical evidence is inconclusive, pointing at different directions. This may reflect the conflicting theoretical predictions on the relationship between these phenomena, but also the prevailing methodological choice which focuses on linear relationships even though nonlinearities are plausible theoretically.

Methods

In this paper, we revisit the empirical relationship between economic conditions and crime by exploring potential nonlinearities. We look at flexible parametric specifications that include up to a cubic term of per capita income (or one dummy for each income quintile) and nonparametric and semi-parametric specifications (such as General Additive Models). Our results are robust to controlling for the standard socioeconomic, demographic, and policy determinants of crime, as well as to including a lagged dependent variable or state and time fixed effects.

Results

We document the existence of an inverted U-shaped relationship between crime and income within US states for the period 1970-2011. Crime increases with per capita income until it reaches a maximum, and then decreases as income keeps rising. This “Crime Kuznets Curve” (CKC) exists for property crime and for categories of violent crime that can be related to economic appropriation, like robbery, and is less robust for violent crimes not connected to economic incentives. We show that this pattern cannot be explained by correlated changes in economic inequality or by changes in law enforcement.

Conclusions

In addition to providing robust evidence of the existence of a CKC, our findings lay the groundwork for studies exploring the underlying theoretical mechanisms. These should go beyond income inequality or law enforcement, and should explain why the results hold more clearly for property than for violent crime. Our findings and subsequent research to understand the underlying drivers are relevant for policy, as they suggest that violent conflict cannot be tackled solely by the trickle-down forces of economic growth.

Keywords

Crime Kuznets curve Income inequality Non-parametric kernel analysis 

JEL Classification

K42 D63 

References

  1. Acemoglu D (2009) Introduction to modern economic growth. Princeton University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  2. Aebi M (2004) Crime trends in Western Europe from 1990 to 2000. Eur J Crim Policy Res 10(2–3):163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen R (1996) Socioeconomic conditions and property crime. Am J Econ Sociol 55(3):293–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreoni J, Levinson A (2001) The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve. J Public Econ 80(2):269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andresen MA (2012) Unemployment and crime: a neighborhood level panel data approach. Soc Sci Res 41(6):1615–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angrist J, Pischke J (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. 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):277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arvanites T, Defina RH (2006) Business cycles and street crime. Criminology 44:139–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker G (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76:169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bertinelli L, Strobl E (2005) The environmental Kuznets curve semi-parametrically revisited. Econ Lett 88(3):350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourguignon F, Morrison C (2002) Inequality among world citizens: 1820–1992. Am Econ Rev 92:727–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bushway S, Cook PJ, Phillips M (2013) The overall effect of the business cycle on crime. Ger Econ Rev 13(4):436–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cantor D, Land KC (1985) Unemployment and crime rates in the post-world war II United States: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Am Sociol Rev 50:317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantor D, Land KC (2001) Unemployment and crime rate fluctuations: a comment on greenberg. J Quant Criminol 17:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carroll L, Jackson PI (1983) Inequality, opportunity, and crime rates in central cities. Criminology 21(2):178–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiricos T (1987) Rates of crime and unemployment: an analysis of aggregate research evidence. Soc Probl 43:187–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cole M, Rayner A, Bates J (1997) The environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis. Environ Dev Econ 2(04):401–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook PJ, Zarkin GA (1985) Crime and the business cycle. J Leg Stud 14(1):115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dasgupta S, Laplante B, Wang H, Wheeler D (2002) Confronting the environmental Kuznets curve. J Econ Perspect 16(1):147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dills AK, Miron JA, Summers G (2008) What do economists know about crime?. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 13759Google Scholar
  21. DiNardo J, Tobias JL (2001) Nonparametric density and regression estimation. J Econ Perspect 15(4):11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Donohue JJ III, Levitt S (2001) The impact of legalized abortion on crime. Q J Econ 116(2):379–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Durlauf S, Navarro S, Rivers D (2010) Understanding aggregate crime regressions. J Econom 158(2):306–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ehrlich I (1973) Participation in illegitimate activities: a theoretical and empirical investigation. J Polit Econ 81(3):521–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fields G (1980) Poverty, inequality and development. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frazer G (2006) Inequality and development across and within countries. World Dev 34(9):1459–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galeotti M, Lanza A, Pauli F (2006) Reassessing the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a robustness exercise. Ecol Econ 57(1):152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Galeotti M, Manera M, Lanza A (2009) On the robustness of robustness checks of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Environ Resour Econ 42(4):551–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gallup J (2012) Is there a Kuznets curve? Working paper. Portland State University, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  31. Glaeser E, Sacerdote B (1999) Why is there more crime in cities? J Polit Econ 107(S6):S225–S258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldberger A, Rosenfeld R (2009) Understanding crime trends. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Gould E, Weinberg B, Mustard D (2002) Crime and local labor market opportunities in the United States: 1979–1997. Revi Econ Stat 87(3):411–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grossman G, Krueger A (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a north american free trade agreement. Working paper No. 3914. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  36. Kanbur R (2012) Does Kuznets still matter? Working Papers No. 128794Google Scholar
  37. Kuznet S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28Google Scholar
  38. Levitt S (2004) Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. J Econ Perspect 18(1):163–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lieb C (2003) The environmental kuznets curve: a survey of the empirical evidence and of possible causes. University of Heidelberg, Department of EconomicGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin M-J (2008) Does unemployment increase crime? Evidence from U.S. data 1974–2000. J Hum Resour 43(2):413–436Google Scholar
  41. Lindert PH, Williamson J (1976) Three centuries of American inequality. Res Econ Hist 1:69–123Google Scholar
  42. Merton R (1938) Social structure and anomie. Am Sociol Rev 3:672–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips J, Land KC (2012) The link between unemployment and crime rate fluctuations: an analysis at the county, state, and national levels. Soc Sci Res 41(3):681–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Poudel B, Paudel K, Bhattarai K (2009) Searching for an environmental Kuznets curve in carbon dioxide pollutant in Latin American countries. J Agric Appl Econ 41(01):13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raphael S, Winter-Ember R (2001) Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. J Law Econ 44(1):259–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenfeld R (2013) Crime and the great recession: introduction to the special issue. J Contemp Crim Justice 30(1):1–3Google Scholar
  48. Stern D (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32(8):1419–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson JQ (1975) Thinking about crime. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversità degli Studi di BergamoBergamoItaly
  2. 2.Facultad de EconomíaUniversidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  3. 3.CAF-Development Bank of Latin America and Universidad del RosarioBogotáColombia
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsUniversidad del RosarioBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations