A new book out, Freakonomics, by a University of Chicago economist, examines a variety of social phenomena from all manner of strange angles. One of its more sensational conclusions is that we can thank abortion for the reduced crime rate of the last 15 years.

The author has an entire website devoted to the book; the chapter on the abortion-crime hypothesis is here. It's certainly fascinating reading.

The basic argument is that Roe v. Wade triggered a wave of abortions, many of which were by poor single women who would have had the greatest difficulties bringing up children well. The supposed mechanism for the crime reduction is that much crime comes from poorly raised children. And certainly the data provides some support for this. For example, the drop in the crime rate came just as the the first babies born after Roe v. Wade reached their late teens, prime time for criminal behavior. Moreover, the drop in the crime rate appeared sooner in states that had loosened abortion restrictions prior to Roe v. Wade. And the reduction in the crime rate was greatest in the states that had the greatest number of abortions.

So the question for debate is:

Is the hypothesis that abortion reduces the crime rate reasonable convincing?

I issue a challenge to this community: can we avoid the utter predictability of pro-life conservatives rejecting the hypothesis and pro-choice liberals accepting it? For once, it would be interesting to see the hypothesis debated on its own merits rather than pre-existing political beliefs.

Is the hypothesis that abortion reduces the crime rate reasonable convincing?


I heard the author of this book interviewed and it sounded so interesting. I want to get it. But as to the question for debate. I am not sure I buy into the hypothesis. I am not sure how much "abortion" factors into the crime rate reduction. First, I think that the population numbers of people in the age group most likely to commit crimes is simply down in the past 10 or 15 years. I remember reading that a "baby boom" of sorts started in the mid-90s and I suspect when those children reach maturity, the crime rate will again go up, simply because of the increased numbers. Second, if we were going to focus specifically on the abortion piece-- it would seem that we would also have to acknowledge that we don't know what positive effects were lost because of the fact that some people were aborted. I mean, who knows, maybe a baby that got aborted would have done something or discovered something that would have had the effect of lessening the crime rate overall even more so. That old saying-- about how something as small as the movement of a butterfly's wings can cause a tsunami across the globe. Not that I necessarily buy into that-- just that I think the link between decreased crime rates and abortion per se is very speculative.

I just bought the book myself, and the guy is a certified economic super genius- some of the more interesting parts are why drug dealers live with thier Mamas, and how real estate agents and the KKK have some similarities.

I love his out of the box thinking- the funniest story is that the GW regime called him and wanted his input on economic matters, since he seems to be the best thing economically since sliced bread, and he said "um, did you see my piece about abortion?" - he never got another call back LOL

After I read the section on this I will enter the debate- this guy rocks!

Indeed, Francis Fukuyama has a completely different hypothesis explaining the crime rate, but it's a more complicated hypothesis that is aimed primarily at explaining the big increase in crime starting in the 60s. He attributes that to the the breakdown of small-scale social institutions and the jump in mobility that allowed people to escape from the, shall we say, "morally stifling" atmosphere of their neighborhoods and small towns. However, his thesis is a bit messier when it comes to explaining the drop in crime rates in the 1990s.

Let me preface my post with the fact that I am Pro-Life. To some, this runs counter to many of my positions, I disagree. I think my position on the issue is relevant in the interest of full disclosure.

That said, I read the web page provided, and this has resulted in me planning to run out and get this book, possibly even tonight. I have heard a bit here and there about it, but the guy definitely seems worth reading.

Now,

Is the hypothesis that abortion reduces the crime rate reasonable convincing?

Kind of a weakly worded question in my opinion. However I bet this is an effort to avoid partisan bickering. An effort which is much appreciated.

Is the hypothesis reasonably convincing? Absolutely. I would take it a step further and say that I believe it is more then just convincing, it is likely correct.

Consider the nature of criminals.

Criminals come from all walks of life, but a great many of them come from dysfunctional families. The fail to adequately learn empathy when they are raised in a home where they feel their parents could care less about them. ALso, the often go without corrective action for bad behavior because the parents simply do not care. As a result, dysfunctional families tend to burden society with people who have nearly no understanding of the reality that actions have consequences.

Even more criminals are born out of economic need. When a family is lacking in funds to live comfortably, and a child in inundated with advertising that claims they just can't live without these shoes, or that toy, it is inevitable that a great many of the economically disadvantaged children will turn to crime. How their foray into crime is handled by their parents is a key factor into whether of not they turn into criminals full time. When you combine economic disadvantage with a dysfunctional family you have a recipe that is the most likely to lead to the development of a criminal.

Parental supervision is also key in steering kids away from crime. More criminals come from single parent families than two parent families. This is not because single parents are necessarily bad parents, but because single parents cannot be there for the kids as much. Being there is no partner to help in the raising of the child and the single parent has to work to support the child, these children of single parent families find themselves on their own alot of the time. Lack of supervision frequently leads to bad behavior, and often to crime. Children who successfully experiment with crime are far more likely to become criminals as adults, and unsupervised children are more likely to experiment with crime.

Then there is the issue of children raising children. Most teen parents are not good parents. They have yet to learn how the world works, what their place is in the world, and they have yet learn though experience how to successfully interact with the world around them. It is no wonder that they do a poor job of teaching their children these things when they do not yet understand them, themselves.

For the record, I am not saying that all children of single parent, teen, dysfunctional, or poor families will be criminals, or that the parents is those families are always bad parents. What I am saying is that the majority of these situations lead to these results. There are always exceptions to the rule. Teens who become unusually mature when they become parents, poor families where the parents work tirelessly to push their kids towards a better life, etc, etc.

Now when we look at abortion what do we see. Most abortions happen as a form of post conception birth control. This is irresponsible behavior in my opinion. However, my daughter was born a few years earlier then planned because of my irresponsible behavior and that did not result in an abortion. So, Irresponsible behavior is not the only cause of abortions IMHO.

Many pregnant teens seek abortions, because they are not capable of being parents or simple do not wish to sacrifice their future to raising a child. Many women who simply do not want the responsiblity of a child seek abortions, and many poor women seek abortion because they cannot afford a child. This would suggest to me, that thanks to Roe v. Wade we have a lower crime rate because we have less children being raised in the environments that are more likely to produce those pre-disposed to be criminals.

One argument in opposition to this is the idea that one of the unborn could have grown up to become the person who developed a new way of approaching crime that radically reduced it. Or one of the unborn could have grown up to be the genius that eliminated poverty, etc. This is an interesting point. However the opposite is also true. One of the unborn could have grown up to be a serial killer, crime lord, mass murderer, etc. Considering the demographics of crime and the demographics of abortions I think the latter is slightly more likely to be true.

So I agree with the authors hypothesis that legalized abortion has resulted in lower crime rates. But that begs the question in me of "so what?" I think it is reasonable to suggest that if we changed our laws and began killing everyone convicted of a violent crime of any kind immediately, without an appeal process or long wait, we would probably see a marked reduction in crime. But would that make the killing of these people morally correct? I still have a problem with the morality of Abortion, regardless of the benefit of crime reduction. And I would prefer to deal with the social ills that create criminals then depend on abortion to eliminate the raw material used in their production.

There you go Erasmussimo, at least one Pro-Life member here sees the hypothesis are reasonable.

Edited to Add:

Doing a bit more thinking and talking on this I thought of something. With our every increasing knowledge of genetics, we learn more and more everyday. If we were to learn that there was a gene or a genetic combination that predisposes someone to violent behavior, would it be moral or just to eliminate those possessing that gene combination before they were born? Personally I do not think so. Who is to say that just because someone is predisposed to violent behavior, that they will not overcome that predisposition? Who is to say that someone cannot be predisposed to violence and still be a benefit to society. Some solutions to our problems are simply not just or moral. Just a thought on my part.

Indeed so. I would very much like to avoid the bickering and discuss this most interesting hypothesis. If it be true, it suggests that we could further reduce crime by providing more assistance to young single mothers -- some kind of backup.


As a matter of fact, scientists have identified a genetic component of violent behavior and conclusively proven the causal relationship. It's the Y chromosome. Given that the species can reproduce quite successfully using only a few individuals with this chromosome, a program of selective culling of individuals found to possess this chromosome might go a long way to reduce crime in our society.

I’m a pro-choice person who disagrees with this article.


The first thing we need to confirm is, are the author’s figures accurate to begin with? In Alaska, rates of violent crime might have decreased marginally from 1988 to 1994, but they continued to climb after that….presumably abortion law did not change. Per murder rates, there was no linear relationship at all. They went down in 1988, then back up, down, back up, ect.

Next, let’s look at California figures. Violent crime escalated during the early nineties…there appears to be no drop in the cited 1988 to 1994 timeframe to speak of. Same for murder rates…the drop in violent crime and murder happened in the mid nineties.

I'd rather not look up the rest, but will assume that other figures are likely erroneous as well, based on those two. Of further note, the violent crime figures in the 1960s and early seventies seemed universally MUCH lower across the board by comparison to the mid to late seventies through mid-ninties…before the “beneficial effects” of Roe supposedly came into place, so what does that tell us? Other flaws I can think of immediately at the moment… Why the assumption that these would-be-mothers didn’t commute to obtain an abortion from other states? How can one assume that they would remain living in the same state decades later…or that their would be criminal children would/ or did remain? And, of course, why assume that many would not have obtained an abortion illegally anyway (many women did)? I think this is rubbish.

Thanks for looking up the numbers; they do tear some pretty big rips in the hypothesis. One of my concerns was that another factor is at work: we know that crime climbed steeply in the 60s and 70s; if that rise had nothing to do with abortion, then we would expect it to fall for any number of reasons during the 80s and 90s. Nevertheless, I'd like to see a full set of numbers on this. Has anybody actually read the book yet? Does he present a complete numerical case, or does he merely cite a handful of figures?


Good points all. The factors you cite would be secondary factors because we know that overall rates of abortion did rise as a consequence of Roe -- if not, reversing Roe wouldn't accomplish anything, would it? Your points count for something but they aren't as destructive as the evidence you cite earlier. And I think you're being a little too hard on the hypothesis to dismiss it as rubbish. It's certainly plausible, and he does seem to have some evidence in its favor. As I said, I'd like to see more data on this.

I am pro choice, and I think that linkage to abortion alone is a gross over-simplification, but one that comes closest to the truth than many other theories of crime control (e.g. the idea that "prison works").

Contemporaneous with the Roe v Wade decision were the wide availability of the contraceptive pill, which could just as easily account for much of the lowering of the birth rate (though not all of it - not everyone can afford to buy the pills).

And I don't entirely buy the idea that single parenthood in impoverished circumstances is the main reason for crime rates to go up a generation later. Mainly because the largest rise in the USA (and other Western countries) in single parenthood in impoverished circumstances has come at around the same time as the rise in abortion rates that followed legalisation. More of the kids that survive to adulthood are now, today, from impoverished single parent families than was the case in the 1960s and 70s, yes the crime rates are still lower. So how can abortion on demand be responsible?

It seem that there is something missing from the thesis. I'm not sure what it is, but for me the posited straightforward, almost linear, inverse relationship between abortion and crime rates seems unconvincing. Though it may be a compont, I do not think it is anything like the whole story.

So far, this book is a media release, not a paper eligible for peer review in an ecnomic journal. So, we don't have a methodology or access to his data in this book- it is a fun read really.

Since Leavit has published in journals before, it will take some research to find out about his methodology in order to REALLY have this debate. The guy is recognized as a number cruncher extrodinaire by his peers, but of course, I am not his peer, so I have no idea on how to replicate his research.

I agree that we shouldn't treat this as a research study presenting a compelling case. As you say, it's a fun read that raises intriguing questions. I find the hypothesis intriguing because it's so ironic. But irony doesn't confer credibility -- merely curiosity.

Since we have too many people, too, and rat studies show that overcrowding causes aberrant, often violent behavior, why not just offer free, permanent sterilization on demand for anyone, male or female, over age 18? Oh, they can do the clips and get it reversed if they really want to, I guess, but a woman should, upon reaching adulthood, have access to this procedure, at very least on a reasonable payment plan, but try getting a doctor to do it for you at that age, or prior to age thirty, if you've never had kids! Nor will they sterilize most males who ask for it. It's silly!

OverlandSailor, I think your assessment is as close to accurate as you can get when speaking of vast generalities (which of course the topic requires!). It's a good rundown on the highlights, anyway. Since you're pro-life, I point you to my above alternative solution....or perhaps we need to even out some of our resources so that life as a single mom isn't a waking nightmare of deprivation and dead-endedness? I think we need one parent home at all times, too, watching the wayward teens. And I don't mean the same parent. Our society needs to be restructured so that men and women share the child rearing evenly, and also share the economic earnings of the family evenly!

Sure it is. As the author notes, it's all demographics. When you hear your local politician taking credit for the crime rate decline in the 90's, remember that there were less young men around to commit these crimes. One hypothesis for the democraphic shift is that there were more abortions leading up to this time. The aging population in the United States means that, on a per 100,000 basis, crime rates are going to decline.

For comparison, here you can find a credible hypothesis of how abortion rates caused Gore to lose the 2000 presidential election. Democratic constituent groups are substantially more likely to have abortions, and the effect over time was that there were less democrats of voting age in Florida in 2000. I'm sure this study raised a few eyebrows, but I also remember hearing that Bush won the 100 fastest-growing US counties in 2004, and that "red states" are almost all growing in population while "blue states" are declining in population. Birth rates are only one factor, but abortion could be a significant contribution.


ralou, I think that you were being a bit flippant here, but why are you saying that "we have too many people?" Are you speaking about the United States, one of the least densely populated developed nations in the world? source

I think in the era a modern birth control (which Jules brought up, coinciding with the approval of Roe), it's impossible to draw a relationship between changing demographics and abortion rates. Each child impacts the parents' lives in a way that determines how many more they will have. My first was a bad sleeper....if not for the fact that he tortured me for two years straight, I'd probably have three today. Pregnancies effect women's bodies and often after two babies they never have another. Careers are probably more to "blame" for the demographics which led to Bush's election victory. The more taxing a woman's career (if memory serves, "power career" women are more likely to be Democrats), the fewer children she is likely to have. A child born at a bad time in a person's life might lead to a woman having only one baby that wasn't aborted instead of three subsequent planned children ten years later. If I decide not to have a third child (we're negotiating), I have a .1 percent chance of having a "surprise". Modern birth control is extremely effective and relatively cheap (a month's worth of birth control is about the price of a week's pack of diapers), and I'd guess it's much more responsible for said changes in the population demographic.

Is the hypothesis that abortion reduces the crime rate reasonable convincing?

Its an intriguing thought, but ultimately unprovable, in my opinion. As Mrs P. and Julian have already pointed out, there are other factors closely related to abortion statistics that could have an equal or greater influence on crime. Especially with birth control achieving ubiquity around the time of Roe v. Wade and having the exact same statistical influence, it would be nearly impossible to distinguish one effect with the other.

Another mitigating factor is the relative mobility of the population. Since 1972 we, as Americans, have become increasingly mobile. So an abortion obtained in NYC would have no influence on crime in the city if that person moved to West Texas 1 year later. Not sure how significant the mitigation is, but it would have the effect of scattering the data and make conclusions even tougher to obtain.

I could, however, see a strong case for arguing the two combined have had an influence on crime rates.

Doc

I think there is definite value in looking at 'out of the box' explanations for social or economic phenomena though. There is an important point here - that the causal agents behind any noticeable trend or event will be complex and could not be easily identified.

So the drop in crime could be attributable to a large number of policy decision or social changes, rather than just one (say an increase in policing, or abortions or living standards etc etc).

Whereas I think we as people (I do certainly) like to look for definite reasons for things that happen...such as 'The Cold War was won because of Reagan' etc etc.

Good points. I'm reminded of one other factor in crime reduction that eludes some people. Real excerpts from the newspaper of record.

Get it? Despite criminals being in jail, the crime rate is decreasing. I mean, who'd have thunk it? A reasonable person could have looked at the same data and said "Because criminals are in jail, the crime rate is decreasing.

I'm pro-choice. I don't have much more to add by agreeing with Doc, Mrs. P et al. When explaining something as complex as human behavior it's best, from a layman's view, to compare a range of possible causations and then assign a hierarchy. From the link: "There are even more correlations, positive and negative, that shore up the abortion-crime link." The correlations the authors speak of are restricted to legalized abortion. They've omitted other possible causations like Carlito's statistics.

Economists can and do make legitimate arguments. Tax cigarettes to the stratosphere and the government legitimizes illicit trade. I've always found it equal parts amusing and frustrating, however, when economists apply figures to human behavior that is one step removed from economic considerations. It's only fair to extend the same reservation for studies that "prove" fatherless households are to blame for increased crime as well.

Well if you we look at the hard facts the criminal elements in society run EXACTLY along racial lines . . . . with nonwhites being the highest population in jail . . . . .

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:04_22...lient=firefox-a
Of the 246,100 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses in 2001, 139,700 (56.7%) were black, 47,000 (19%) were Hispanic, and 57,300 (23.2%) were white. Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, July 2003), Table 15, p. 10.

. . . . .and the nonwhites have the LOWEST rate of having abortions . . . . . whites having the highest . .

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm

'72 '76 '80 '85 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94
White 77.0 66.6 69.9 66.6 64.8 63.8 61.5 60.9 60.5
Black 23.0 33.4 30.1 29.8 31.8 32.5 33.9 34.9 34.7
Source: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, January 3, 1997, Vol. 45 / Nos. 51 & 52. Published by Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta.

So obvioulsy the author was intending to spread propaganda since this information only took me less than 5 minutes to gather . . . . .

Image

Image

. . . obviously propaganda which provides lies as "evidence" to jusitfy the existence of abortion in this country . . . people think "killing babies" is a good deterent to cime but they have a problem executing criminals . . . . .

Image

Image

Unfortunately the original paper by LEvitt and Donohue is not available unless purchased for $38 or so online. I was able to find a vast array of counterarguments, however, and some support for the theory:

This is a basic summary of the concept including a list of possible criticisms on Wikipedia. There is also a nod to Steve Sailor, whose lengthy criticism of the theory is here...

From the Wikipedia site (and from Sailor's site) you can link to a volley of debate between Levitt and Sailor. It is interesting to read.

Here is also the introduction to the book on NPR.org with an audio link on Levitt defending his theses.

My initial interpretation is that Levitt has little interest in massive number crunching as a method doing social science. In the into to the book (linked above) he gives the example of the parents who were late to pick up their children from day-care. When a fine was introduced for such behavior the number of late parents actually increased dramatically. The fine seemed to have been a message that, although being late is inconvenient, it is achknowledged as possiblly acceptable behavior. These inconsistencies seem to be what Levitt looks for in human behavior.

In the case of abortion. while one might be bale to point out myriad common sense reasons why legalized abortion wouldn't lead women to abort births just because they don't want the kids" it seems plausible to me.

Prior to legalized abortion one really had to go to extreme measures to abort an unwanted child. Within a few years of abortion being legalized abortions jumped from 30,000 per year to over 1 million. It seems to me that women who found themselves to be pregnant (but who weren't desperate enough to get an illegal abortion) were offered the luxury of rethinking their pregnancy once abortion was made legal.

This decision has nothing to do with socioeconomics. Levitt seems dead set on pressing that issue. It has only to do with "unwanted" children. If a woman finds herself pregnant but does not believe she can raise the child in a healthy setting then she aborts. While this does not describe anything close to ALL of the abortions it seems likely that it mirrors a good number of them.

I have to concede that this sounds reasonable to me. Even if only 50,000 out of the millions of abortions were done to keep a child from being raised in an unhealthy environment then it is possible that crimes were averted. If, for no other reason, than the fact that most unhealthy environments are likely to be high crime areas or abusive homes, both of which are predictors of criminal behavior in individuals.

Let me first state, that while I am a liberal I am also against abortion... I find most of the pro-life arguments and tactics silly enough to not want that title, however. Second, I've actually read the book and I find the conclusion very compelling -- almost uncomfortably so because it makes the issue a little cloudier. At the end of the day, however, I think you have to look at the issue from an AMERICAN point of view -- I would rather ten guilty people go free than one innocent be put to death and I'd rather be murdered myself by a person that would otherwise have been aborted if it means that ten children grow up to be happy and upstanding citizens... or even one.

My partner in crime, Salerio, disagrees with me wholeheartedly on all of this, but that's what makes the world go 'round I suppose.