The part of economics that I like the most isn’t what you’d first think of when someone mentions the field. While typical concepts such as GDP growth and unemployment rates are certainly essential to the study of economics, it is less conventional niches of econ that I find most fascinating. Stephen Dubner is a University of Chicago economist who co authored the Freakonomics series with Steven Levitt, another economist. Their work, which I very highly recommend, seeks to “explore the hidden side of everything” through the lens of economics. The books analyze a wide array of topics, from incentive structures that promote teachers cheating on standardized tests, to the dynamic through which levels of society tend to adopt popular baby names. All of the areas assessed prove to be incredibly interesting, but in this post I will be highlighting an area that has a very significant economic and social effect on society as a whole. Crime is, of course, a constant occurrence that we as a society are constantly trying to suppress. In Freakonomics, Dubner points out the seemingly “out of control” crime rates of the mid 80s and early 90s that had many people concerned. Many scholars and policy makers had championed various, and often conflicting theories of crime reduction. Dubner points out that those who had promoted all sorts of different policies have always asserted that aggressive and deliberate application of their policy would result in a decrease in crime. When crime finally did come down in the 90s, many suggested that this was the result of these same policies. However, Dubner shows that such claims are inconsistent and unsupported by data. He rather suggests that another factor entirely was at play below the surface, one that seemed unrelated, but logically and statistically added up upon deeper inspection.
One of the major claims that Dubner asserts in the book is that “conventional wisdom” is almost always assumed to be true, but is often formed from incomplete or incorrect logic. Conventional wisdom generally consists of the set of assumptions that we as a society have come to consider intuitive. For instance that the logical way to combat crime would be to enact “anti crime” policies such as gun control or increased police presence. While this may seem logical, Dubner argues that a much more definite, yet much less expected variable was the result of the decrease in crime seen in the 90s, and a general means by which crime can be lowered. As counter intuitive as it may sound, Dubner argues that that Roe v Wade supreme court decision in 1973 is what deserves credit for the crime reduction roughly two decades later. It may sound crazy, but the evidence presented actually presents a very strong argument in favor of the theory.
In 1973 the US Supreme Court ruled in in favor of Norma McCorvey, meaning that abortion was effectively legalized throughout the entirety of the United States. This decision on the surface would at first seem to have next to nothing to do with crime, let alone a drop in the crime rate nearly twenty years later. But when you take a closer look, the connection becomes surprisingly intuitive. Demographically, abortions are sought most commonly by low income women. Prior to the decision, abortions were particularly difficult to obtain in many parts of the US, meaning that many of these low income women were unable to have a procedure done. Then suddenly in 1973, abortion becomes widely accessible, meaning that hundreds of thousands of low income women began to have abortions each year following the decision. Its not so much about what began happening at this point, but rather what ceased, that being the birth of hundreds of thousands of low income individuals to mothers who likely couldn’t have afforded to raise them. It also happens to be the case that these low income individuals who are not being born, would also typically be part of the demographic that is most predisposed to committing crime (low income). The decrease in crime experienced in the 90s coincides almost perfectly with when all of the individuals that were not born due to abortion, would have been reaching their peak crime committing years. Thus, as concluded in a much more thorough study co-authored with John Donohue, Dubner reaches the hypothesis that the drop in crime experienced was the result of the Roe v Wade decision. This is further extended into the theory that abortion in general plays a key role in lowering crime rates, and other comparative examples are referenced further supporting the hypothesis. If you are interested in reviewing a more thorough explanation of Dubner’s claims, I would recommend reading Freakonomics or referencing the complete study via the link above. Also check out a list of responses Dubner compiled which address various counter arguments brought against his theory.
This is of course not in any way meant to be an argument for or against abortion based on moral principles or protection of rights (to life or choice). Rather the goal of this post was to highlight the idea that the conventional wisdom often does not provide adequate answers to many occurrences, and that in order to understand the full picture, it is often necessary to dig a bit deeper than you normally might. As Dubner often asserts, many people will try to explain observed patterns in an over simplified, self interested manner, the true cause is often a variable that may have never occurred to you. It is all summarized quite well in a quote by legendary economist F. A. Hayek, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”