Legalized Abortion and Crime Rates

The first article by Donohue and Levitt is the same concept that we read about in Freakonomics.  They discuss the idea that the legalization of abortion was the major cause of the reduction in all types of crime in America in the 1990s.  Although abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade in 1973, the effects on crime rates were not seen until the 1990s when the cohort of the would-be teenagers would be committing the most crime.  The argument is twofold in that it is shown that people from the age of 15-20 are the most likely to commit crimes. So, if abortion is legal, it reduces the number of teenagers, thus reducing crime.  And also, it reduces the amount of unwanted children that grow up in unhealthy environments which makes them more susceptible to crime.  With a smaller population of unwanted children due to legalized abortion, crime will decrease.  Since there was a large jump in the number of abortions after they were legalized, it would make sense to see these predicted effects some 15-20 years later (since that's the age at which those teens would have been committing crimes). 

Donohue and Levitt make a convincing argument and point to a lot of other research and literature that has been done and written on this subject.  They provide data and regression models to help support their notion that legalized abortions caused a reduction in crime rates.  They do mention other factors that may have helped reduce crime, however, they argue that those factors were always around and did not seem to reduce crime rates as abruptly as they propose legal abortion did.  Foote and Goetz write a comment on the paper by Donohue and Levitt pointing out what they see as flaws in their work and findings. 

Foote and Goetz state that Donohue and Levitt made errors in their regressions and analysis of data which caused a skewed perspective of what was going on.  They do say that Donohue and Levitt made some convincing arguments however, they also point out that their method of cross-state rather than within-state comparisons of crime data were a misrepresentation of the facts.  They point out that the crime and reasons for it in New York and Idaho are much different.  Therefore, they should be comparing crime trends over time in just New York and in just Idaho rather than making a sweeping generalization about crime in all parts of the country. 

Another thing that Foote and Goetz point out is the coding problem in the final regression that Donohue and Levitt run.  One of the flaws they point out is the fact that the regression included total arrests rather than per capita arrests as had all the other regressions in the paper.  Foote and Goetz find that when they use the appropriate measure of per capita arrests they find that the significance in the model disappears. 

Essentially the second paper discounts a lot of the information that we read in the first.  However, I still do think that there is something to learn from the first paper.  Aside from it being an interesting concept that abortions have reduced crime rates, I do think that Donohue and Levitt provide a lot of good information and evidence that it is true.  Even Foote and Goetz say that there is some strong evidence to support their hypothesis.  So, after reading each I do not completely discount what we have read both in Freakonomics and the paper by Donohue and Levitt.  It makes you think critically about things that you read and pay attention to detail, but I mostly think that the notion of legalized abortions reducing crime rates years later has some factual backing to it.  It is at least theoretically sound even if it is not definitely a causal truth. 

Freakonomics Chapter 4

In this chapter the author discusses the trend in criminal activity in the United States and what the possible causes are for it's decrease in the early 1990's.  They discuss several theories of why the crime rates have decreased including, increased numbers of policeman, stricter gun laws, changes in drug markets, and abortion laws.  The chapter does a good job of evaluating the various theories that economists and others have about why the crime rates decreases.  The author brings up some interesting points that make you think differently about something that may seem obvious.  He also discusses at length how abortion has an effect on crime rates.  Most people would not think that there would be a relationship between crime and abortion however he brings up a good theoretical point that makes us think that it could be possible. 

The author states that babies that a mother would have aborted but didn't receive less attention and care than a wanted baby.  Therefore, they grow up in worse conditions and may be more prone to criminal activity than a baby growing up in a loving and healthy environment.  Something that I thought was interesting was his critique on whether or not Rudy Giuliani really had the huge impact that people thought he did on crime in New York City.  He points out that the man that was mayor before him actually implemented a lot of things at the same time as crime rates were decreasing.  He says that crime rates started to go down before Giuliani was even in office.  I would argue that although this may be true, there could have been other factors that cause crime rates to go down.  Possibly his strong leadership presence, initiative, knowledge, and dedication played a large role in reducing crime as well.  I think the author may be looking too strongly into the numbers and concrete facts of these scenarios rather than immeasurable aspects such as the ones I just listed that can also have effects on certain things like the crime rate. 

Research Paper Summary

The research that I did for my paper looked at the link between poverty and population size in urban settings.  My hypothesis was that as cities grow, so too do their poverty rates.  I collected data from 17 different cities over a 30 year period.  Other factors that I thought would effect poverty rates outside of population were level of education by citizens of those populations and median family income.  My two measures of education were the number of people that completed high school and the number of people that completed college or more.  I also included the years to see if there was a relationship over time between population and poverty. 

The results that I got were somewhat what I had expected.  I did find a very statistically significant relationship between poverty rates and population though there was not a very large coefficient on the variable population, the t-stat was highly significant.  I was also pleased to find that my measure of education, specifically the college or more variable, effected poverty rates in a negative way.  There was a negative correlation between whether a person gets a college degree and poverty rates, which was nice to see because that's what I expected to happen.  The same was true for median family income.  The coefficient was negative, meaning it decreased poverty rates as it increased and it was very statistically significant.  However, the opposite was true for those people who received less than a high school education.  As the number of people with this level of education increases, so too did poverty rates.  Though it was not statistically significant at a high level, it did suggest an upward trend between the two variables. 

Overall, the findings were interesting to see and I was pleased because it was what I was expecting to happen.  After writing a rough draft, I think there are still some things I can change around a little and look at more closely to try to get a better model. 

Assignment #8

In chapter 5 of Poor Economics, the authors discuss family size in the under developed countries that they have studied.  They ask the question whether families want to have large families or if there are out side sources that cause family size to be much larger in these countries.  They also look at the effects of having large families in these areas.  They discuss fertility decisions among the poor in these countries, contraception in those areas, family dynamics, and the economics of large families and how children can be of financial use to the parents. 

The chapter talks about areas with family-planning clinics versus areas without them and how it affected fertility rates in those areas.  The book states that though the areas with clinics did have lower fertility rates, it was not due to the clinics themselves.  The clinics were most abundant where people wanted them to be.  In other words, people demanded these clinics and therefore they were built in those areas. However, the clinics had no direct effect on fertility.  Despite what the book concludes, my hypothesis about fertility rates and family-planning clinics would be: the more family-planning clinics, the lower the fertility rates.  I would test this by collecting data on the number of family-planning clinics in different areas and the related fertility rates in those areas. 

My guess is that there would be other factors that effect fertility rates outside of whether or not family-planning clinics exist.  They may be population, family income, marital status of the mother, and perhaps whether there was access to good education (people may not start families in areas where they cannot send their children to school).  My model would look something like this:

Fertility Rate = B#family-planning clinics + Bpopulation + BMedian family income + B#of schools + E

The dummy variable in this equation could be the marital status of the mother.  If she was married she would be a 1 and if she were not married she would be a 0.  If I believe that being married causes a woman to have more children I would expect the coefficient of my dummy variable to be a positive number.  I wouldn't expect it to be very high numerically because I don't think that being married increases fertility rates by a huge number, but I would expect it to be positive.  If it were positive it would tell me the married women, on average, have more babies than do unmarried women.  To tell whether or not this variable is significant I would look at the t-statistic that I get from running a t-test.  After seeing that value I could determine whether or not this dummy variable of being married or not were significant. 

Assignment #7

The article that I read was one from the New York Daily News from September of this past year.  It discusses how poverty rates in New York City rose according to the 2010 census.  They state that the economy is to blame for the rise in poverty rates and that there is concern of how poverty is spread throughout the city.  There is a lot of disparity in poverty among different demographics of people.  The article also states that every borough except for Manhattan experienced an increase in poverty rates which is also concerning to government officials in the City. 

The article made me realize that something that I may need to keep in mind are years in which there are recessions and how it may affect the poverty rate.  Obviously, if the economy is not doing well then poverty rates are more likely to go up in those years.  Therefore, I could possibly create a dummy variable for years that are and are not recession years.  This way I could hopefully control for the economy and get a better measure of how population is effecting poverty rates. 

Another thing the article talks about is poverty among different racial groups.  This is something that I could maybe think about as well.  I am not exactly sure how I would take that into account or whether it would skew my data at all if I don't consider it, but it would definitely be something interesting to explore.  I don't think that any of these new variables would violate any of the assumptions of the linear model however, it is possible that there may be correlation among variables that I choose to use.  There is likely correlation between recession years and the poverty rates which implies co-linearity among my explanatory variables.  However, I think including information about the economy, specifically the recession years as dummy variables will help to give me a stronger regression.

Poverty Among Urban Youth

I found an article that was posted a few days ago on the recent report by UNICEF on "The State of the World's Children 2012".  The article discusses how millions of children around the world are growing up in urban poverty.  Despite having greater access to modern services and facilities than their rural counterparts, children in urban areas still lack access to clean water, electricity, and education.  Also, due to overcrowding in cities and the often unsanitary environments they reside in, children tend to suffer from deadly diseases.  So, as cities continue to grow, people in those areas, particularly children, continue to suffer because they are often not able to afford the aid or medicine that they need. The article also points out that people often say that those in urban areas are better off than those in rural areas.  However, the authors say that the relative wealth of those living in cities offsets those living in poverty making it look like urban areas are less poor when, in reality, that is not always the case.

Although this article is summarizing a report of urban areas in other, poorer parts of the world, it still brings up factors that I will need to think about in my research.  The article stresses that children who are poverty stricken are often held back later in life because they grew up in an environment where they did not have the opportunities to receive a good education, eat nourishing foods, and receive good health care. All of these factors lead to children not being as healthy and productive as they can possibly be.  This is related to what we read in Poor Economics where the authors found that malnourished workers could not be as productive as possible and therefore were not able to get good jobs and therefore lift themselves out of poverty.  The report states that because the children growing up in these parts of the world suffer from under nutrition and lack of education they are not able to bring themselves out of poverty later in life. 

These factors are things that I think are also true for the urban poor in America as well.  If children in urban America are unable to afford a sufficient amount of food or afford to go to college and receive a good education it is unlikely that they will be able to receive a good job and bring themselves out of poverty.  So these are some of the factors that I will need to try and account for in doing my research.  I will probably need to find some data on schooling systems in poor areas of American cities and whether or not the people who live there receive some sort of financial aid for food and other necessities.  These will be very important in whether or not people will remain poor or not and also whether or not they will be able to move out of these areas. 

http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/220341/millions_of_children_in_cities_face_poverty_and_exclusion:_report_.html

Top of the Class

In chapter 4 of poor economics, the authors discuss the educational systems in the developing countries that they are studying.  There are two theories about the poor quality of the education in these places. One is a supply-side theory of tackling the problem with the education system and the other is demand-side oriented.  The supply-siders say that government needs to regulate and make sure that there are good teachers in the classroom actually teaching the students.  One of the big problems they find is that the teachers are often absent or when they are there they aren't teaching the students. The demand-siders say that since there is a high rate of absenteeism and many parents don't send their children to school, why bother trying to intervene and regulate.  If people want education then a good system will come about through a strong demand.  If the public schooling isn't good enough for the parents then a demand for private schooling will emerge and the system will essentially remedy itself. 

The article that I found was about schooling in Africa in the after math of a long civil war.  The authors state that both attendance among students and the quality of the education provided have fallen drastically since the war ended.  Though the reasons for the low quality of education that the book talks about are different than that of the article, they each raise some interesting concepts.  For example, the book talks about how in the United States education is something that is highly valued and the government forces parents to send their children to school.  In the book the authors state that in some places parents keep their children home to help them work around the house or in their shops.  In the article it says that only 10% of students were in attendance during the first week of school.  Although the reasons for low attendance is different (one cause by a war and the other by a need for additional help at home), it makes you think about how people in different parts of the world value education and how it is regarded in society.  It is hard to imagine in America a child just not attending schooling because their parents need them to go to work on their farm or in their business. However, this is what happens in many parts of the world.  And, although we haven't experienced a war in our own country in a long time, even after something as tragic as 9/11 did not really cause us to miss much school.  These examples may not be comparable but I did find it interesting to read and think about how people view education and how important attendance in school is in different parts of the world.

Another thing that both the book and the article bring up is low quality of education.  The article states that pass rates dropped as much as 13% following the end of the civil war.  In the book the authors state that the teachers in school are not performing as well as they should be and as a result students do not know how to do simple mathematics or read simple paragraphs.  The reading levels of the students in the countries the authors studied was very low.  Though the article and the book provide the same issues but in very different contexts, they raise the same fundamental issues of education quality and attendance which I found interesting to think about especially in relation to our own educational system. 

Here is the article that I read:  http://blogs.cfr.org/campbell/2011/11/03/low-school-attendance-marks-slow-recovery-for-ivory-coast/

Research Paper

For my research paper I am going to explore the relationship between urban development and poverty rates in associated areas.  I plan on looking at major cities in the United States to see how their populations have changed in the past half century and how their poverty rates have changed.  My question is: does urban development have an effect on poverty in those developing areas?

Thesis: Population growth in urban areas has a negative effect on poverty rates.  As urban areas become more developed a greater number of people in those areas become poor due to job competition and over crowding.  

This is an important topic to look at because in some areas poverty is a huge problem.  If a relationship were found between urban development and poverty then there may be a possibility to implement policies to aid the problem.  Poverty is something that drastically affects many people in this country and if policy makers could find some of the sources that cause poverty they could perhaps do more to combat it.  Researching this specific relationship is one of the ways that policy makers can begin to see what sort of things causes poverty to increase and possibly generate new policies to help prevent poverty.  

I chose this topic because I know that there are many things that cause poverty.  However, I wanted to explore one specific thing that might cause poverty to increase.  I did some research in one of my other classes about poverty in relation to health.  I found that, typically, there are actually more poor people in rural areas than in urban ones, which I found interesting. I also found that the poor in rural areas are worse off than the poor in urban settings. So, this made me want to see if I could find a relationship between growth in urban areas and an increase in the respective poverty rates.

As I mentioned, there are many things that affect poverty.  I believe that urban development is one of them but I realize there are so many other things that come into play as well that I may have a hard time controlling for.  For example, people who are born into poverty and people who move into cities and are already poor which increases both development and poverty rates. Also there may be general aspects of urban life that force people into poverty other than job competition or overcrowding.  I am using a website that allows you to select any city in America and see statistics including population size and poverty over the years.  I am hoping that this and other resources will provide me with enough information to fully and accurately see a connection between urban development and poverty rates. 

Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?

In chapter 3 of Freakonomics the authors discuss the business of dealing crack cocaine.  They review data and evidence collected by a student who spent years living with, studying, and researching a gang of drug dealers in Chicago.  The title of the chapter asks the question, "why do drug dealers still live with their moms?" Most people assume that those who deal drugs would make enough money to live on their own, especially those who deal with a large gang such as the Black Gangster Disciple Nation that the authors discuss in the chapter.  The authors argue that contrary to popular belief, most drug dealers do not make very much money and, as a result, live with their parents out of necessity.  They find that only those at the very top of the gang make a substantial living selling drugs.  Those who are doing all the leg work and actual selling of the drugs, barely make any money doing so.  The authors make the argument that dealing drugs, within a gang at least, is only a lucrative business if you are close to the top and in charge. If you are not an authority figure, then you likely will still live at home with your mother. 

Though much of the chapter consists of anecdotal and factual evidence to tell the story of what life of a drug dealer is like, the authors do point to some of the spreadsheets that they acquired directly from the gang to show their levels of income.  Four statistics that they provide are:
p. 102 how much a leader of a gang makes on a monthly basis, p. 103 how much workers under the leader make on a monthly basis, p. 102 the number of members in that specific gang, p. 105 statistics on the area in Chicago in which the gang members resided.

On page 102, the authors state that the leader, J.T. had a monthly net income of $8,500 which translates to a $102,000 a year salary, tax-free.  The authors use this statistic as a way of illustrating their point that those at the upper levels of a gang do make a lot of money and can earn enough to live very comfortably.  This statistic is presented before all other income levels of gang members are presented as a way of leading the reader on to further wonder why do drug dealers live with their moms if they're making this much money. However, the authors then reveal on the next page that the officers who work for J.T. make $7 an hour and the foot soldiers make $3.30 and hour which is less than minimum wage.  This brings the authors point to light that most drug dealers do not make much money which forces them to live with their mothers.  A wage of $3.30 an hour is well below minimum wage and is not a livable wage whatsoever which is why many of the drug dealers still live at home.

The authors also show the statistic of how many people are actually in the gang.  Again, on page 102 they state that there are 120 bosses whom are paid very well and 5,300 people working under them.  This statistic is used to show the huge number of people that are affiliated with the gang and why it is not possible to pay that much people such high "salaries".  The authors then compared the game of drug dealing to that of professional sports, acting, and artists.  There's a large number of people competing but only a very small number, 2.2% in this case, make it big.  The authors compare the low level drug dealers who are earning very little to a high school athlete aspiring to reach the pros.  So, this statistic is used to show both how little most drug dealers are paid and how many drug dealers there are out there which makes it easy to see why so many of them would be living at home rather than lavish lifestyles.  By presenting this statistic first and then comparing it to professional sports it makes it easier to realize the situation of many drug dealers that are competing to try and make it to the top.

Lastly, the authors present many statistics on page 105 of the circumstances in which the people from J.T.'s area live in.  They say that 56% of children live below the poverty line, compared to the national average of 18%; 78% are from single-parent households; and the median income for the neighborhood is $15, 000 a year which is well less than half that of the national average.  By presenting this statistic last, the authors make it clear why anyone would ever choose to sell drugs and only make $3.30 an hour.  Since the economic conditions in the neighborhood are so terrible, being a drug dealer, though it doesn't pay well, has a certain stigma attached to it.  For kids growing up in this area, drug dealing is a cool thing to do and provides hopes of making a lot of money - though most barely make any.  So, from these statistics we see why someone would choose to work a job with such little pay.  Not only may it be one of the only opportunities available to them, but it also attaches to them a label of being in a gang which is something that people in that neighborhood value very highly.

The authors use these and other statistics to illustrate their point that though there are many drug dealers that make a lot of money, the vast majority barely make any and are forced to live with their parents and get other jobs to make ends meet.  I found this chapter very interesting.  I was actually fascinated to learn that gangs were so organized especially with respects to keeping track of their finances.  It is interesting to know that even those drug dealers who are affiliated with and sell for a gang are still relatively low-level dealers who do not profit very much from their activity.

Assignment #2

In chapter 3 of Poor Economics the authors discuss the idea of a health-based poverty trap in many third-world countries that they have studied.  They conduct research and experiments on the health care systems and the health of citizens in eighteen developing countries. From this research, the authors argue that though there are medicines and treatments available, as well as incentives, to these people, they do not always seize the opportunity to utilize them.  Much like the hunger issue that the authors discussed in the previous chapter, it seems as if the poor in these countries are not taking advantage of what is available to them and not taking actions that are in their best interests.  As a result of people not taking advantage of what is available to them, they remain unhealthy or sick and may not be able to better their situations at all.  The authors point to many data and statistics that they have found to help show that there are efforts being made to provide these people with medical help but they are not always willing to take advantage of it. 

One statistic that the authors provide shows that many people in Zambia do not purchase Chlorin, a product used to purify water.  They say that for $.18, a bottle of Chlorin can be purchased which will last a month and will help to clean up the drinking water.  If the water is cleaned with this bleach it can reduce diarrhea in young children up to 48%.  Despite the low price of Chlorin and the drastic effects it can have, only 10% of the population uses the product.  It is not, as the authors point out, for a lack of knowledge about the product; when asked, 98% of the people were able to name Chlorin as a water sanitizer.  Even when an experiment was conducted to reduce the price of Chlorin and see how it affected peoples purchasing habits, there was still one quarter of the population that would not buy the product.

The authors introduce these statistics both as numerical and anecdotal evidence to support their argument that people in poor countries do not take advantage of resources that can improve their health despite huge incentives.  They tell how even with the reductions in price there was still a large chunk of the population that chose not to buy Chlorin.  Through this statistic the authors are able to show that even though there were incentives to buy this product that could benefit them, people were still unwilling to do so.  I think this is one of the best statistics and stories that they provide in the chapter to reinforce their argument.  The price of Chlorin was reduced to $.07 and would last them a month, however 25% of the population did not purchase it.  This shows that there is at least some truth in what the authors say about people not taking advantage of what seems like readily available and accessible resources that are shown to improve health. 

This statistic does seem realistic to me because they did an experiment to see if price was what was holding people back from buying the product.  They found that though there was a large increase in the number of people who bought Chlorin after the discount was offered, there were still many people who did not.  What I would ask is what are the reasons for those who chose not to buy it? Maybe they did not have young children who would greatly benefit from the product. Perhaps they never suffered from diarrhea and didn't feel the need to purchase Chlorin.  I think there could be many reasons why 25% of the population did not purchase Chlorin and the authors did not really go into that at all.  I think it would have been interesting to somehow conduct a survey of the people who do not use Chlorin for their water and ask why they don't.  Also, comparing the health of those who do and do not use Chlorin would also have been an interesting thing to do.  However, it was a good statistic to help illustrate the point that there are cheap resources available that some people choose not to use.

Assignment #1

Chapter 2 of Poor Economics looks at the relationship between malnutrition and the ability to perform at a job and be a productive worker.  The chapter focuses on poor countries which often have trouble getting as many nutrients as they need in their diets.  The topics they discuss were aroused by the announcement made in 2009 by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization which said that there were more than a billion people in the world suffering from hunger.  They discussed the notion of a "poverty trap" which is essentially a predicament many poor people find themselves in when they cannot afford to eat enough food which leaves them unproductive and unable to pull themselves out of poverty.  Malnutrition is the root of the poverty trap which keeps many people in poverty in poor parts of the world.  The authors look at what effects increases in incomes has on peoples food consumption.  The assumption is that with more money people will buy more food and consequently become more productive and be lifted out of poverty.  However, they found that many people choose to buy better tasting and quality food rather than buying more food which has no impact on how much nutrition they are receiving.  Also, people elect to purchase luxury goods such as cell phones, televisions, and DVD players with any extra income because of the utility they get from these goods.  Nourishment as an infant and young child, they found, has been associated with greater health and success later in life because it allows you to reach your full physical and intellectual potential.  The better you eat in your early years, the authors say, the more productive you can be as an adult and hopefully avoid the hunger-based poverty trap.  In the end they conclude that much of the food policy is focused on providing cheaper grain for people; however, they argue that it is not necessarily cheaper grain that will remedy the problem, it is more nutritious foods and investments in nutrition that will help the poor become more healthy. 

The hunger-based poverty trap that the authors discuss is the idea that people who are malnourished are unproductive and therefore remain poor.  The authors look to several anecdotes to help explain how people can be caught in this poverty trap.  One man that they studied had lost his job as an agricultural laborer and was too old to begin a new job in construction.  Without any income his family was forced to split up just to survive.  He now lives off the help of his brother and the little food he can get for himself.  The man attributed the fact that no one would hire him to not having enough food and therefore not being a useful worker. 

The authors also reference their numerical data that they collected in their eighteen-country study to illustrate the problem of the nutrition-based poverty trap.  They stated that in these countries food accounted for about 50 percent of of consumption.  Other consumption by the people in these countries was devoted to "luxury" goods such as alcohol, cigarettes, parties, and televisions.  They found that because those people were living in such bad conditions, having something such as a party or television that could make them happy was extremely important to them.  One man even stated that the television was more important to him than food. The authors found that many people in poor countries chose to purchase luxury items rather than food with income that they had available to them which left many of them under nourished.  And, when they do choose to spend additional income on food, it is spent mostly on better food rather than more food. The authors use the data and statistics collected from this study, along with anecdotal evidence, to show that many people do get trapped in poverty due to a lack of nutrition in their diets which results in an inability to be productive. 

I believe that the theory of a hunger-based poverty trap makes perfect sense, however I am not sure if it is the sole factor in why people remain poor.  I do think that the evidence they provide certainly suggests that a lack of food has profound effects on ones' well-being and ability to be production.  But, there are many other reasons why people remain in poverty.  In many of the countries that they studied there are not as many opportunities to become wealthy, especially for those who live in rural areas in which agricultural labor may be the only option for work.  Also, the poor have a harder time moving from place to place which results in them literally being stuck in one location in some cases.  So, even though malnutrition greatly effects people, it is only one piece of what keeps people in the so called "poverty trap".