Advertisement

Mechanisms and Extrapolation in the Abortion-Crime Controversy

  • Daniel Steel
Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 3)

Abstract

John Donohue and Steven Levitt’s seminal and controversial article, The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime, famously argues that the legalization of abortion in 1973 in the Unites States is a significant factor explaining the surprising decline in crime rates that occurred there in the 1990s. In this chapter, I examine the role of extrapolation in Donohue and Levitt’s study and draw three main philosophical conclusions. First, several different types of causal claims might be at issue in an extrapolation—including claims about mechanisms and probabilistic causal effects—and these distinctions matter for methodology because different conditions may be required to support extrapolation in each case. Secondly, scientific study of a phenomenon typically generates evidence at a variety of levels of aggregation, and this has important implications for extrapolation. The third and final point follows on the heels of the second. Like almost all other scientific inferences, extrapolations are normally components of a complex web of interrelated evidence that must be considered together in assessing a hypothesis.

Keywords

Selection Variable Causal Effect Crime Rate Causal Structure Unwanted Pregnancy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Dagg, Paul. 1991. The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion–denied and completed. The American Journal of Psychiatry 148(5): 578–585.Google Scholar
  2. David, Henry, Zdenek Dytrych, Zdenek Matejcek, and Vratislav Schuller. 1988. Born unwanted: Developmental effects of denied abortion. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Donohue, John, and Steven Levitt. 2001. The impact of legalized abortion on crime. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(2): 379–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donohue, John, and Steven Levitt. 2004. Further evidence that legalized abortion lowered crime: A reply to Joyce. Journal of Human Resources 39: 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Donohue, John, and Steven Levitt. 2008. Measurement error, legalized abortion, and the decline in crime: A response to Foote and Goetz. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(1): 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dytrych, Zdenek, Zdenek Matejcek, and Vratislav Schuller. 1988. In The Prague cohort: Adolescence and early adulthood, ed. H.P. David et al., 87–102. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and bolts for social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foote, Christopher, and Christopher Goetz. 2008. The impact of legalized abortion on crime: Comment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(1): 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fryer, Roland, Paul Heaton, Steven Levitt, and Kevin Murphy. 2005. Measuring the impact of crack cocaine. NBER Working Paper Series, no. w11318. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  10. George, Alexander, and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gruber, Jonathan, Phillip Levine, and Douglas Staiger. 1999. Abortion legalization and child living circumstances: Who is the “marginal child”? Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(1): 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hedstrom, Peter, and Richard Swedberg (eds.). 1999. Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Joyce, Ted. 2003. Did legalized abortion lower crime? Journal of Human Resources 39(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kincaid, Harold. 1996. Philosophical foundations of the social sciences: Analyzing controversies in social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lafollette, Hugh, and Niall Shanks. 1996. Brute science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Levine, Phillip, Douglas Staiger, Thomas Kane, and David Zimmerman. 1999. Roe v. Wade and American fertility. American Journal of Public Health 89(2): 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levitt, Steven. 2004. Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(1): 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levitt, Steven. 2005. Abortion and crime: Who should you believe? Freakonomics Blog. http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
  19. Little, Daniel. 1992. Varieties of social explanation. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  20. Little, Daniel. 1998. Microfoundations, method, and causation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Matejcek, Zdenek, Zdenek Dytrych, and Vratislav Schuller. 1988. In The Prague cohort through age nine, ed. H.P. David et al., 53–86. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pearl, Judea, and Daniel Bareinboim. 2011. Transportability across studies: A formal approach. UCLA Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Technical Report (R-372), San Francisco.Google Scholar
  24. Rasanen, Pirkko, Helina Hakko, Matti Isohanni, Sheilagh Hodgkins, Marjo-Riita Jarvelin, and Jari Tiihonen. 1999. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of criminal behavior among adult male offspring in the northern Finland 1966 birth cohort. The American Journal of Psychiatry 156(6): 857–862.Google Scholar
  25. Reiss, Julian. 2007. Do we need mechanisms in the social sciences? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37(2): 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reiss, Julian. 2010. Review: Across the boundaries: Extrapolation in biology and social science. Economics and Philosophy 26: 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reyes, Jessica. 2007. Environmental policy as social policy? The impact of childhood lead exposure on crime. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 7(1): Article 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Steel, Daniel. 2004. Social mechanisms and causal inference. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34(1): 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steel, Daniel. 2008. Across the boundaries: Extrapolation in biology and social science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Steel, Daniel. 2011. Causality, causal models, and mechanisms. In The Sage handbook on the philosophy of social science, ed. Ian C. Jarvie and Jesús Zamora-Bonilla, 288–304. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Truman, Jennifer, and Michael Rand. 2010. Criminal victimization, 2009. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ 231327). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  32. Wadsworth, Tim. 2010. Is immigration responsible for the crime drop? An assessment of the influence of immigration on changes in violent crime between 1990 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly 91(2): 531–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations