Essays on the Economics of Crime
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Essays on the Economics of Crime Iain William Long A thesis submitted to the Department of Economics of the Lon- don School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, June 2012. 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the Ph.D. degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is per- mitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 33,025 words. Statement of inclusion of previous work I can confirm that chapter 1 was based upon the result of previous study (for a Master of Research in Economics) I undertook at the London School of Economics and Political Science. 2 Abstract I present three essays on the economics of crime. The first considers an activity associated with 55% of all criminal offences in the UK: binge drinking. One group inextricably linked with such behaviour is the sports team. Members regularly engage in post-match drinking, where the team’sreputation is at stake. Teams often apply peer pressure (the threat of punishment for refusal to compete) to ensure each member gets involved. Chapter 1 presents a simple model of competitive drinking, and evaluates the amount of peer pressure a team needs to apply when multiple equilibria exist. The thesis then turns attention towards criminal organisations. Chapter 2 discusses the use of initiation by protection rackets. Such rituals are widely used, and serve several purposes. Firstly, they allow initiates’ skills to be assessed. Secondly, they act as an incentive to invest in skills. Thirdly, they signal to the racket’s customers. The chapter derives conditions on the underlying distribu- tion of abilities such that a racket can adjust initiation diffi culty to improve its reputation. It then discusses these conditions in light of “key player” policies, suggesting they may be more effective than previously thought. Chapter 3 evaluates the impact of a variety of anti-crime policies on how a criminal gang recruits. Gangs counteract policy effects by adjusting the wage they offer and the intensity of violence they require their members to inflict. This can lead to policies backfiring; increasing the social cost of the gang. A policy which reduces the youths’incentive to join a gang leaves only hardened criminals as recruits. If gang size and violence are weak revenue complements, this causes the gang to substitute towards more violence. Policies are therefore most effective when they not only reduce the incentive to join the gang, but also increase youths’sensitivity towards inflicting violence. 3 Contents Declaration 2 1 Peer Pressure and Binge Drinking 8 1.1 Introduction.............................. 8 1.2 Literature Review . 12 1.2.1 Empirical Work . 13 1.2.2 Theoretical Work . 15 1.3 TheModel............................... 18 1.4 Equilibria ............................... 23 1.4.1 Acquired Signal Equilibria . 24 1.4.2 No Signal Equilibria . 27 1.5 PeerPressure ............................. 29 1.6 Conclusions .............................. 34 1.A Proof of Proposition 1 . 36 1.B Proof of Proposition 2 . 39 1.C Proof of Proposition 3 . 40 1.D Proof of Proposition 4 . 41 1.E Proof of Proposition 5 . 45 1.F ProofofCorollary1.......................... 46 1.F.1 All players choose action C ................. 47 4 Contents 1.F.2 “Strong” players choose action C, whereas “Weak” players choose action D ........................ 48 1.F.3 “Strong”players choose action D, whereas “Weak”players choose action C ........................ 49 1.F.4 All players choose action D ................. 49 2 Initiation and Protection Rackets 51 2.1 Introduction.............................. 51 2.2 Stylised Facts About Protection Rackets . 55 2.2.1 Reputation in Protection Markets . 55 2.2.2 Initiation as a Determinant of Reputation . 57 2.2.3 Acquisition of Criminal Skills . 59 2.3 TheModel............................... 61 2.4 Equilibrium .............................. 65 2.4.1 Youth Decisions with Initiation . 66 2.4.2 Youth Decisions without Initiation . 69 2.4.3 Mafia Decisions . 72 2.5 Initiation as a Signal . 73 2.6 Discussion............................... 78 2.7 Conclusions .............................. 81 2.A Proof of Proposition 6 . 83 2.A.1 @c1 > 0 @H > 0 and @L > 0 ............... 83 @I ) @I @I 2.A.2 @H > 0 and @L > 0 @c1 > 0 ............... 83 @I @I ) @I 2.B Proof of Proposition 7 . 84 3 Recruitment to Organised Crime 88 3.1 Introduction.............................. 88 3.1.1 Criminal Organisations as Firms . 91 5 Contents 3.1.2 Opportunities in a Criminal Neighbourhood . 94 3.1.3 Tackling Organised Crime . 96 3.2 A Model of Recruitment to Organised Crime . 100 3.3 TheSimpleGang ........................... 103 3.3.1 Youth Decisions . 103 3.3.2 Gang Leader Decisions . 106 3.4 Policy with a Simple Gang . 111 3.4.1 Results for a Generic Policy . 112 3.4.2 Results for Specific Policies . 117 3.5 The Separating Gang . 125 3.5.1 Youth Decisions . 125 3.5.2 Gang Leader Decisions . 127 3.6 Policy with a Separating Gang . 131 3.6.1 Results for a Generic Policy . 132 3.6.2 Results for Specific Policies . 136 3.7 Conclusions .............................. 141 3.A Proof of Proposition 8 . 143 3.B Proof of Proposition 11 . 145 3.C Proof of Proposition 12 . 147 3.D Proof of Proposition 13 . 148 6 List of Figures 2.1 A simple model of protection . 56 2.2 Equilibria with high and low recruits, only low recruits and no recruits. ................................ 70 2.3 A situation in which Proposition 7 holds. 78 2.4 A situation in which Proposition 7 does not hold. 79 3.1 A -ability youth’schoice of criminal skill. 104 3.2 Youths’payoffs from gang membership versus the primary labour market. ................................ 105 3.3 The range of values over which Assumption 4 and Assumption 5 hold................................... 109 3.4 Restricted factor demands with complements and substitutes. 111 3.5 Policy effects with complements. 114 3.6 Policy effects with substitutes. 115 3.7 Effect of an increase in the severity of punishment (f) or the mar- ket wage (w)..............................118 3.8 Effect of an increase in the arrest and conviction rate (p) or in the prevention of juvenile crime (k).................... 121 3.9 An example of an implementable contract . 128 7 Chapter 1 Peer Pressure and Binge Drinking 1.1 Introduction Binge drinking is one of the most high profile issues facing modern British society. A recent government report suggests that alcohol abuse costs the National Health Service around £ 2.7 billion per year in England (Department of Health 2008). This figure has seen a significant increase over recent years, growing from £ 1.7 billion per year only five years earlier (Cabinet Offi ce 2003). The upsurge in concern in policy, media and academic circles is therefore unsurprising. Binge drinking is also the source of a wide variety of negative externalities. In- creased morbidity, absenteeism and premature death resulting from alcohol abuse are estimated to cost England around £ 6.4 billion per year in lost productivity (Cabinet Offi ce 2003). Moreover, the cost of alcohol-fuelled crime (including victimisation costs) was estimated at around £ 11.9 billion per year. Matthews, Shepherd, and Sivarajasingham 2006 show that alcohol consumption is a sig- nificant risk factor in admission to hospital as a result of being injured due to violence. Moreover, they suggest that this relationship is causal. They found 8 Peer Pressure and Binge Drinking Introduction that increases in the price of beer in the UK significantly reduced the number of hospital admissions, even when controlling for numerous socioeconomic and seasonal variables. It is this relationship to crime that often captures the head- lines. Thirty percent of all recorded crime in the UK in 2003 was committed by young binge drinkers (compared with 17% for other young people), with binge drinkers of all ages accounting for 55% of all offences (Home Offi ce 2005). Whilst it is important to differentiate between correlation and causation, 63% of young binge drinkers surveyed claimed to have been involved in criminal or disorderly behaviour whilst drunk in the last twelve months. Twenty-five percent claimed to have been involved in a fight. What is the extent of the problem? According to a survey conducted by the Home Offi ce, 62% of young men1 and 47% of young women are classed as binge drinkers, claiming to feel very drunk at least once a month for the last twelve months (Home Offi ce 2006). Perhaps more worryingly, 28% of boys, and 32% of girls aged 10-15 reported binge drinking. The issue is not restricted to the UK. In the US, many universities and colleges have adopted an alcohol policy in response to the effects of binge drinking. In a recent survey of online policies (Faden and Baskin 2002), 73% of colleges sampled did not allow consumption of alcohol in public places. Moreover, 36% of institutions explicitly forbade the use of alcohol references in advertising by student groups. In 78% of cases, breaches of the policy could result in suspension, and in 82% even expulsion. Particularly amongst young people, peer pressure may play an important role in shaping the decision to binge drink.