Economics 160
Download
1 / 76

Economics 160 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on

Economics 160. Lecture 5 Professor Votey Law Enforcement Effectiveness: Productivity. Votey 2, Notes: pp. 30-18. The Science of Decisionmaking. Methodology: The Economic Paradigm Recall 3 Steps (Notes, pp 3,4) 1. Specification:

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Economics 160' - usoa


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Economics 160
Economics 160

Lecture 5

Professor Votey

Law Enforcement Effectiveness:

Productivity

Votey 2, Notes: pp. 30-18


The science of decisionmaking
The Science of Decisionmaking

Methodology:The Economic Paradigm

Recall 3 Steps(Notes, pp 3,4)

1. Specification:

Specify the Alternative States of the World

2. Valuation:

Establish a Value System, e.g. Prices

3. Optimization:

Picking the “Best” Solution

Profit Maximization, Cost Minimization


Minimizing the Net Social Costs of Crime:

An Application of Economic Decisionmaking

The Tool: Some Form of Cost/Benefit Analysis

Costs

Social Costs of Crime

(SC)

Costs to Victims

(VC)

Control Costs

(CC)

Offenses

(Crime Level)

OF*

Notes, p. 4

Minimum Social Cost of Crime


Minimizing the Net Social Costs of Crime:

An Application of Economic Decision-making

The Tool: Some Form of Cost/Benefit Analysis

We referred to: E. J. Mishan, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Ch. 3,

in REFERENCES (RBR)*

Costs

Social Costs of Crime

(SC)

VC

Costs to Victims

Control Costs

(CC)

Offenses

(Crime Level)

OF*

Minimum Social Cost of Crime


*Ed Mishan, an English economist is a well known figure to the older members of the Econ Department, having been an academic visitor here on at least two occasions (the two during my time here which began in Fall 1966). He is one of the internationally known economists who played a role in developing the economic science behind the huge infrastructure investments made during the Great Depression that created such enormous projects as the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River.

That same science would form the basis for any public projects today that might be undertaken to create jobs and repair U. S. infrastructure as has been recently proposed.

Since those days, there has been much criticism of such investments, mostly by individuals who believe that any investments by society should be limited to the private


sector since they believe only markets can lead to efficient outcomes. Interestingly, the Hoover Dam, arguably the largest public project undertaken by any country up to that time, was completed under budget and ahead of schedule.

There have been many criticisms of such fiscal policy stimulants as originally advocated by the British economist John Maynard Keynes. They do take time to work and only seem to work markedly on a massive scale.

Our economy did not fully recover during the 1930’s, but the policy was certainly vindicated by our participation in WW II, when we put 16,000,000 people to work in the military while going from a third rate to the greatest military establishment in the world with a two ocean navy and an air force second to none, both of which we continued to maintain following the war, while simultaneously paying for the rebuilding of the economies of both our allies and enemies with Marshall Plan Aid,and while paying off our own debt that we undertook to fight the war.


Minimizing the costs of crime
Minimizing the Costs of Crime outcomes. Interestingly, the Hoover Dam, arguably the largest public project undertaken by any country up to that time, was completed


Minimizing the costs of crime1
Minimizing the Costs of Crime outcomes. Interestingly, the Hoover Dam, arguably the largest public project undertaken by any country up to that time, was completed

Objective: Min SC = VC + CC

Notes, p 5


Minimizing the costs of crime2
Minimizing the Costs of Crime outcomes. Interestingly, the Hoover Dam, arguably the largest public project undertaken by any country up to that time, was completed

Objective: Min SC = VC + CC

The Logic:

The minimum social cost of crime is the smallest sum

We could realize, of victim costs plus the costs of crime control.

If we minimize the costs of a “BAD”, we have more

of our resources left to spend on “GOODS”.


Recall from Lecture 1 the circular flow diagram that represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

Text Reference: Economics of Crime Control, Chapter 9 and in Notes, p13


Economic Notions of Productivity represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

  • Consider A Steel Mill – an example from heavy industry

    • Resources:

      • Raw Materials: Iron Ore, Coal, Limestone

      • Labor: Variety of Skills

      • Capital: Blast Furnace, Oxygen Furnace Rolling Mills, Plating Mills

  • Technology: Means of Linking Inputs

  • Output: Iron, Finished Steel

  • How does one make a Reasonable Analogy between a typical production process and the Criminal Justice System?

  • Next: Conceiving of Outputs


  • The criminal justice system
    The Criminal Justice System represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    • Theory

      • 1. Basis for Defining/Identifying Outputs

    • A Schematic

      • 1. Functions

      • 2. Stages of Operation

      • 3. Operating Entities

      • 2. Basis for Evaluating Effectiveness

    • Empirical Evidence


    Notes represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control, p 14, Figure 2.2

    Criminal Justice System:

    The Real World Process

    Input

    OF

    Stage 1 Function

    Law Enforcement

    POLICE FORCE

    Operating Entity

    Produces

    Prosecution Stage 2

    ARRESTS

    DA

    COMPLAINTS

    Adjudication

    COMPLAINTS

    Stage 3

    COURTS

    INDICTMENTS

    Stage 4

    Corrections

    or Punishment

    CONVICTION

    (guilty)

    DISMISSAL

    (not guilty)

    INPUTS/

    OUTPUTS

    JAILS,PRISON,PROBATION

    ?

    RELEASE

    (PAROLE)


    How Good is the output analogy in cases of represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    non-market decision making?

    Consider other Public Service Industries:

    • Education - What is the output?

      • Number of Students ? - or are these inputs?

      • Number of Graduates?

    • Hospitals - What is the Output?

      • Number of Patients ?

      • Again, this is an input

      • Lives Saved?

      • For how long?

      • What determines hospitals’ rankings?


    An aside about the past
    An Aside - about the past represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    • Physical Outputs in a Command Economy –

      • How are they measured?

      • A story from? George Karcz

      • Or maybe Doug Morgan

        • About Light Fixtures


    What did we decide was the proper social represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    objective with respect to CRIME?

    Minimizing the Social Cost


    Minimizing the Social Cost represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    • What does this mean in terms of productivity?


    Minimizing the Social Cost represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    • What does this mean in terms of productivity?

    • Reducing Crime Numbers or Seriousness (or both)


    Minimizing the social cost
    Minimizing the Social Cost represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    Notes, p.5

    • Recall: Social Cost Minimization implies:

      • Min SC = VC + CC i.e., Victim Costs + Control Costs

    • Irrespective of the values we place on individual offenses, as long as they are positive,Social Cost Minimization requiresReducing CrimeNumbers or Seriousness


    Minimizing the social cost1
    Minimizing the Social Cost represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    • Recall: Social Cost Minimization implies:

      • Min SC = VC + CC i.e., Victim Costs + Control Costs

    • Irrespective of the values we place on individual offenses, as long as they are positive,Social Cost Minimization requiresReducing Crime Numbers or Seriousness or Reducing Control Costs


    Minimizing the social cost2
    Minimizing the Social Cost represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    • Recall: Social Cost Minimization implies:

      • Min SC = VC + CC i.e., Victim Costs + Control Costs

    • Irrespective of the values we place on individual offenses, as long as they are positive, Social Cost Minimization requires Reducing Crime Numbers or Seriousness or Reducing Control Costs

    • Consider the Circular Flow Process: (again)


    Minimizing the social cost3
    Minimizing the Social Cost represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    • Irrespective of the values we place on individual offenses, as long as they are positive,Social Cost Minimization requiresReducing Crime Numbers or Seriousness (or control costs)

    • Recall: Social Cost Minimization implies:

      • Min SC = VC + CC i.e., Victim Costs + Control Costs

    • Consider the Circular Flow Process: (again)

    Notes, p. 5


    Minimizing the social cost4
    Minimizing the Social Cost represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    • Recall: Social Cost Minimization implies:

      • Min SC = VC + CC i.e., Victim Costs + Control Costs

    • on individual offenses, as long as they are positive, Social Cost Minimization requires Reducing Crime Numbers or Seriousness (or both)

    • Consider the Circular Flow Process: (again) Irrespective of the values we place

    Victim Costs +


    Looking at the circular flow process one observes that arrests and offenses seem to move together
    Looking at the Circular Flow Process, One observes that represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and ControlArrests and Offensesseem tomove together

    • Separating the Effects

      • Resort to the Economic Paradigm and

      • Economic Decision Theory

    • Appeal to the approach of

      • The Utilitarians

      • Jeremy Bentham - the father of . . .

        • Modern Economic Decision Theory

        • Evaluating Results Based on Expected Net Benefits


    What we are trying to do at this point? represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    Find out what works to control crime.

    But we want to find out the BEST way,

    optimization, i.e. determining Best Policy

    It is great to have a theory

    It is better to have a theory that we know works.

    With appropriate research a theoretical model

    becomes a policy model

    This work facilitates the implementation of the Economic Paradigm


    Economic decision theory in a nutshell
    Economic Decision Theory in a Nutshell represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control

    • Expected Net Benefits (of any action):

    • Expected Net Benefits = Expected Benefits - Expected Costs E(NB) = E(B) - E(C)

    • In terms of value:the Value of the Expectation = $B x P(B) - $C x P(C)

    • The Basis for:

      • The decision from the potential criminal’s point of view?

        And

      • The logical counter policy from Society’s point of view?

      • These are two sides of the same coin


    Working within the framework of the criminal justice system
    Working within the framework of the represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control Criminal Justice System

    • Bentham’s focus: “Pain” - the institutional counterpart:

      • Punishment via the system of Corrections

    • Enlarging the Expectation: Increase the likelihood of pain

      • We call this combination of activities Deterrence

    • The Criminal Justice System: is involved at every stage

      • Raising the expected cost implies:$C x P(C) = P(Arrest) x P(Conv|Arrest) x P(Jail|Conv) x $Jail

      • Each Stage contributes to the reduction inCRIME


    Criminal justice system measures of output
    Criminal Justice System represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control Measures of Output

    • Quantity Measures

      • A. The number of Arrests

        • Made on basis of probable cause

      • B. Arrest Ratio(a relative measure)

        • = AR = Arrests / Offenses

        • Was declining in 1960’s and ‘70’s for U.S. and California

      • Q. Do Arrests deter crime?

        • Sjoquist, American Economic Review (1973) – in References

        • San Diego

        • Problem: Arrests may not be best measure


    Criminal justice system measures of output cont
    Criminal Justice System represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control Measures of Output (-cont.)

    • Quality Measures

      • A. Clearances (an absolute measure)

        • crimes cleared by arrest = CL

        • The last burglar - an example

      • B. Clearance Ratio (a relative measure)

        • = CR = Clearances / Offenses

        • Problems with the Clearance Ratio

    • System Quality

      • A. Convictions (an absolute measure)

        • Outcome determined in a court of law


    Criminal justice system measures of output cont1
    Criminal Justice System represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control Measures of Output (-cont.)

    • B. Conviction Ratio (a relative measure)

      • CR =Felony Convictions / Offenses(sometimes CR)

    • Other Measures

      • A. Police Ratio

        • = Complaints (filed in courts) / Offenses

        • measures combined quality of Police & DA efforts

      • B. Complaints Ratio

        • = Complaints (filed w/DA) / Arrests

        • measures quality of Police efforts by DA


    Output measures compared for homicide in california
    Output Measures Compared for Homicide in represented the interacting system of Crime Generation and Control California




    The effect of increasing expenditures for law enforcement in california and the u s
    The Effect of Increasing Expenditures for and the U. S. ? Law Enforcement in California and the U. S.


    How do we use output measures to evaluate the system economic production theory
    How Do We Use Output Measures to Evaluate and the U. S. ? the System?EconomicProduction Theory

    Output

    Case of:

    Constant Returns

    to Scale

    Fixed Proportions

    Inputs

    Notes, Fig.2.3, p.16


    Economic production theory applied to law enforcement
    Economic Production Theory and the U. S. ?Applied to Law Enforcement

    CL

    Case of:

    Varying Proportions

    CL

    Production: CL = f( OF, L)

    Assumes the load

    on the System

    (offenses) is held

    fixed

    OFFENSES

    (load on the System)

    RESOURCES

    (labor)

    An example of Diminishing Returns

    L

    What if we hold Resources Fixed and Increase Offenses?

    Notes, Fig. 2.5, p 17


    Economic production theory applied to law enforcement1
    Economic Production Theory and the U. S. ?Applied to Law Enforcement

    CL

    Case of:

    Varying Proportions

    CL

    Production: CL = f( OF, L)

    Assumes System

    Resources are held

    fixed while offenses

    vary

    OFFENSES

    (load on the System)

    RESOURCES

    (labor)

    OF

    Notes, Fig. 2.5, p.17


    Economic production theory applied to law enforcement2
    Economic Production Theory and the U. S. ?Applied to Law Enforcement

    CL

    Case of:

    Varying Proportions

    CL

    Production: CL = f( OF, L)

    Assumes System

    Resources are held

    fixed while offenses

    vary

    OFFENSES

    (load on the System)

    RESOURCES

    (labor)

    OF

    So much for Productivity, What does this imply about

    Police Effectiveness?


    Determining police effectiveness
    Determining Police Effectiveness and the U. S. ?

    CL

    A

    Notes Fig. 2.6, p.17

    CL1

    0

    OF1

    OF


    Determining police effectiveness1
    Determining Police Effectiveness and the U. S. ?

    CL

    A

    CL1

    Notes Fig. 2.6, p.17

    How do we

    measure

    Police

    Effectiveness?

    a

    0

    OF1

    OF

    As Slope of 0A = tan a = OF to A = CL1

    0 to OF1 OF1


    Determining police effectiveness2
    Determining Police Effectiveness and the U. S. ?

    CL

    A

    CL1

    Notes Fig. 2.6, p.17

    How do we

    measure

    Police

    Effectiveness?

    a

    0

    OF1

    OF

    Does anyone

    recall what this is?

    As Slope of 0A = tan a = OF1 A = CL1

    0 OF1 OF1


    Determining police effectiveness3
    Determining Police Effectiveness and the U. S. ?

    CL

    A

    CL1

    Notes Fig. 2.6, p.17

    a

    0

    OF1

    OF

    tan a = OF1 A = CL1 = CR1 The CLEARANCE RATIO

    0 OF1 OF1


    To plot the clearance ratio for various offense levels
    To plot the Clearance Ratio for various Offense Levels and the U. S. ?

    CL

    B

    CL2

    A

    CL1

    a

    0

    OF1

    OF2

    OF

    Notes Fig. 2.6, p.17


    To plot the clearance ratio for various offense levels1
    To plot the Clearance Ratio for various Offense Levels and the U. S. ?

    CL

    B

    CL2

    A

    CL1

    Notes Fig. 2.6, p.17

    a

    0

    OF1

    OF2

    OF

    Plot points A and B in space showing the Clearance

    Ratio relative to Offense levels


    Plotting points a and b in cr of space
    Plotting points A and B in CR - OF space and the U. S. ?

    Note that CR1 = CL1> CR2 = CL2

    OF1 OF2

    and

    line AB is drawn holding L constant

    CR

    A

    CR1

    B

    CR2

    (CR,OF|L0)

    0

    OF1

    OF2

    OF

    What happens to Police Effectiveness with an increase

    in Police Resources?


    The change in Police Effectiveness with an increase and the U. S. ?

    in Police Resources, holding Offense levels constant

    CR

    Higher Effectiveness, Effect of New level of

    Police Resources

    A

    CR1

    (CR,OF|L1)

    B

    CR2

    (CR,OF|L0)

    0

    OF1

    OF2

    OF

    We can show this in terms of alternative levels of Resources


    Police Effectiveness in terms of and the U. S. ?

    alternative levels of Resources

    CR

    Curves illustrated assume

    Economic Efficiency, i.e.,

    that Resources are being

    used efficiently.

    Offenses are being

    held constant

    0

    L

    Notes, Fig. 2.8, p18

    What if they are not ?


    What if Police are not efficient, but simply “satisficing”, i.e., just working sufficiently hard to maintain Clearance Ratios?

    CL

    We will not observe diminishing

    returns since the police are not

    working to their limit to begin with.

    B

    A

    OF


    What if Police are not efficient, but simply “satisficing”, i.e., just working sufficiently hard“satisficing”, i.e., just working sufficiently hard to maintain Clearance Ratios?

    CL

    We will not observe diminishing

    returns since the police are not

    working to their limit to begin with.

    B

    A

    OF

    CR

    Performance

    standards appear to

    be maintained, since

    Clearance Ratios

    are maintained

    A

    B

    OF


    What if Police are not efficient, but simply “satisficing”, i.e., just working sufficiently hard to maintain Clearance Ratios?

    CL

    We will not observe diminishing

    returns since the police are not

    working to their limit to begin with.

    B

    A

    OF

    What would this

    imply in Economic

    terms ?

    CR

    Performance

    standards appear to

    be maintained, since

    Clearance Ratios

    are maintained

    A

    B

    OF


    Depicting police manpower inefficiency
    Depicting Police Manpower Inefficiency “satisficing”, i.e., just working sufficiently hard

    CR

    efficient production

    observed output level

    if police only work to

    maintain the Clearance

    Ratio

    L


    Depicting police manpower inefficiency1
    Depicting Police Manpower Inefficiency “satisficing”, i.e., just working sufficiently hard

    CR

    efficient production

    slack

    observed output level

    if police only work to

    maintain the Clearance

    Ratio

    L2

    L1

    L

    As manpower is increased

    slack increases

    , but output level

    doesn’t rise

    If this were the true picture, how could we tell ?


    Depicting police manpower inefficiency2
    Depicting Police Manpower Inefficiency “satisficing”, i.e., just working sufficiently hard

    CR

    efficient production

    slack

    observed output level

    if police only work to

    maintain the Clearance

    Ratio

    L2

    L1

    L

    slack increases as manpower

    increases

    There would be no statistical relationship between

    Police Resources and the Clearance Ratio.


    Looking at the empirical evidence looking at the real world
    Looking at the Empirical Evidence: “satisficing”, i.e., just working sufficiently hard Looking at the Real World

    • A. Acquire Data

      • 1. Outputs: CL, CR

      • 2. Inputs:

        • Resources: EMP, OTE, L

        • Case Load: OF

        • Technological Change: systematic changes over time not related to inputs

    • B. Work Out Theoretical Statistical Models

      • 1. Productivity: CL = f( OF, EMP, OTE, t)

      • 2. Effectiveness: CR = f( OF, EMP, OTE, t)

      • 3. and : CR = f( OF, L ) with other data

    Based on Theory, what do we expect to find ?


    Switching
    Switching “satisficing”, i.e., just working sufficiently hard

    • Notice that, at this point, I have switched from discussing the theory of what we have studied to moving toward the testing of our theoretical model.

    • Recall the distinction made in the introduction to the course between Positive and Normative economics.

    • We are moving into the realm ofPositive Economics – determining how the real world of crime and justice works


    • Such work has been the focus of much of the research of Professor Phillips and myself.

    • A worthy less technical exercise in positive economics:Freakonomics, is by Steven Levitt, who describes himself as a “rogue economist.” Some of it is about crime. It provides an easy description of the logic behind his work and ours.

    • Throughout the course, we shift between explaining the theory behind our analysis, positive economics – testing the theory, and normative economics – the discussion of what this all implies for sound public policy.

    • Next, the results of our testing of production theory as it relates to crime and justice.


    Expected outcomes from statistical evaluation economic theory would predict
    Expected Outcomes from statistical evaluation: Professor Phillips and myself. Economic Theory Would Predict

    dCR / dOF < 0 dCR / dL > 0 dCR / dt > 0 (if Tech D)

    CR CR CR

    t2

    t1

    L1 L2

    Varying: OF|L,t Varying: L|OF,t Varying t|OF,L

    The question we would hope to be able to answer by looking at real world data is whether these expectations are borne out.


    For the answer one should refer to the text the economics of crime control chapter 9
    For the answer one should refer to the text, Professor Phillips and myself. The Economics of Crime Control, Chapter 9

    the statistical form used for estimation:

    CR = k elt OFwEMPb1OTEb2 e

    the Cobb-Douglas Production Function, from

    Paul Douglas, ”Are there Laws of Production”, American Economic Review (1939)

    w, b1, b2are elasticities

    w = % D CR

    1% DOF


    For the answer one should refer to the text the economics of crime control chapter 91
    For the answer one should refer to the text, Professor Phillips and myself. The Economics of Crime Control, Chapter 9

    the statistical form used for estimation:

    CR = k elt OFwEMPb1OTEb2 e

    the Cobb-Douglas Production Function, from

    Paul Douglas, ”Are there Laws of Production”, American Economic Review (1939)

    w, b1, b2are elasticities

    w = % D CR b1 = % D CR

    1% DOF 1% D EMP


    For the answer one should refer to the text the economics of crime control chapter 92
    For the answer one should refer to the text, Professor Phillips and myself. The Economics of Crime Control, Chapter 9

    the statistical form used for estimation:

    CR = k elt OFwEMPb1OTEb2 e

    the Cobb-Douglas Production Function, from

    Paul Douglas, ”Are there Laws of Production”, American Economic Review (1939)

    w, b1, b2are elasticities

    w = % D CR b1 = % D CR _b2= % D CR__

    1% DOF 1% D EMP 1% D OTE


    For the answer one should refer to the text the economics of crime control chapter 93
    For the answer one should refer to the text, Professor Phillips and myself. The Economics of Crime Control, Chapter 9

    the statistical form used for estimation:

    CR = k elt OFwEMPb1OTEb2 e

    the Cobb-Douglas Production Function, from

    Paul Douglas, ”Are there Laws of Production”, American Economic Review (1939)

    w, b1, b2are elasticities

    w = % D CRb1= % D CR b2= % D CR_

    1% DOF 1% D EMP 1% D OTE

    l = rate of growth of output, independent of OTE, EMP, OF


    Empirical results for 4 felony crimes burglary larceny theft auto theft robbery
    Empirical Results for 4 Felony Crimes: Professor Phillips and myself. Burglary, Larceny(Theft), Auto Theft, Robbery


    Empirical results for 4 felony crimes burglary larceny theft auto theft robbery1
    Empirical Results for 4 Felony Crimes: Professor Phillips and myself. Burglary, Larceny(Theft), Auto Theft, Robbery

    Parameter Variable Prediction Estimate Range


    Empirical results for 4 felony crimes burglary larceny theft auto theft robbery2
    Empirical Results for 4 Felony Crimes: Professor Phillips and myself. Burglary, Larceny(Theft), Auto Theft, Robbery

    Parameter Variable Prediction Estimate Range

    w OF < 0 - .37 to -.88


    Empirical results for 4 felony crimes burglary larceny theft auto theft robbery3
    Empirical Results for 4 Felony Crimes: Professor Phillips and myself. Burglary, Larceny(Theft), Auto Theft, Robbery

    Parameter Variable Prediction Estimate Range

    w OF < 0 - .37 to -.88

    b1 EMP > 0 NS to .72


    Empirical results for 4 felony crimes burglary larceny theft auto theft robbery4
    Empirical Results for 4 Felony Crimes: Professor Phillips and myself. Burglary, Larceny(Theft), Auto Theft, Robbery

    Parameter Variable Prediction Estimate Range

    w OF < 0 - .37 to -.88

    b1 EMP > 0 NS to .72

    b2 OTE > 0 .13 to .30


    Empirical results for 4 felony crimes burglary larceny theft auto theft robbery5
    Empirical Results for 4 Felony Crimes: Professor Phillips and myself. Burglary, Larceny(Theft), Auto Theft, Robbery

    Parameter Variable Prediction Estimate Range

    w OF < 0 - .37 to -.88

    b1 EMP > 0 NS to .72

    b2 OTE > 0 .13 to .30

    l Time > 0 NS


    Empirical results for 4 felony crimes burglary larceny theft auto theft robbery6
    Empirical Results for 4 Felony Crimes: Professor Phillips and myself. Burglary, Larceny(Theft), Auto Theft, Robbery

    Parameter Variable Prediction Estimate Range

    w OF < 0 - .37 to -.88

    b1 EMP > 0 NS to .72

    b2 OTE > 0 .13 to .30

    l Time > 0 NS

    NS = Not statistically different from zero


    Empirical results for 4 felony crimes burglary larceny theft auto theft robbery7
    Empirical Results for 4 Felony Crimes: Professor Phillips and myself. Burglary, Larceny(Theft), Auto Theft, Robbery

    Parameter Variable Prediction Estimate Range

    w OF < 0 - .37 to -.88

    b1 EMP > 0 NS to .72

    b2 OTE > 0 .13 to .30

    l Time > 0 NS

    NS = Not statistically different from zero

    Note: The formulations estimated for each of the four offenses

    produced estimates of % of “explained” variance (R2)

    ranging from 78 to 86.


    Empirical results for 4 felony crimes burglary larceny theft auto theft robbery8
    Empirical Results for 4 Felony Crimes: Professor Phillips and myself. Burglary, Larceny(Theft), Auto Theft, Robbery

    Parameter Variable Prediction Estimate Range

    w OF < 0 - .37 to -.88

    b1 EMP > 0 NS to .72

    b2 OTE > 0 .13 to .30

    l Time > 0 NS

    NS = Not statistically different from zero

    Note: The formulations estimated for each of the four offenses

    produced estimates of % of “explained” variance (R2)

    ranging from 78 to 86.

    These results can be displayed graphically as well.


    Law enforcement effectiveness estimates for the u s 1952 1968
    Law Enforcement Effectiveness Estimates Professor Phillips and myself. for the U. S.,1952-1968

    Forecast

    Estimation

    Text, p. 93


    Patterns for the Clearance Ratio and Offense Rates for Professor Phillips and myself. Robbery in Comparison with Expenditures for Law Enforcement for the United States, 1952 - 1967.

    Early Trend in Law Enforcement

    Expenditures

    Text, p.93


    Recall the more recent patterns of offense rates for california and the u s
    Recall the More Recent patterns of Offense Rates Professor Phillips and myself. for California and the U. S.


    And the levels of police protection in place relative to overall offense rates over the same period
    - Professor Phillips and myself. and the Levels of Police Protection in Place, Relativeto Overall Offense Rates, over the same period

    2008


    Ideas to remember
    Ideas to Remember Professor Phillips and myself.

    • The Economic Paradigm (3 steps)

    • The objective in dealing with crime

      • Minimizing the Social Cost of Crime

  • Jeremy Bentham

    • Who was he? What did he do?

  • Economic Production Theory

    • How does it apply to the analysis of crime?

  • The empirical evidence

    • What does it tell us?


  • Professor votey

    Professor Votey Professor Phillips and myself.

    Jobs and Crime:

    Youth and Women

    Notes, Votey 3, p. 31


    ad