Sign in with Facebook
Manny's Reviews > Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
by
by
I loved this book, though I think the title is a bit misleading. It's not really about economics. In fact, he's showing you what interesting things you can discover when you apply statistical analysis to problems where you wouldn't normally think of using it. I use statistical methods a fair amount in my own work, so I found it particularly interesting. The most startling and thought-provoking example is definitely the unexpected reduction in US urban crime that occurred towards the end of the 20th century. Crime rates had been rising for decades, and people were really worried about what would happen if the trend continued. Then, suddenly, they peaked and started to decline. Why? There were a bunch of theories, all of them superficially plausible.
Levitt crunched the numbers, to see what proportion of the variance could be ascribed to the different factors. This is a completely standard technique; it just hadn't been used here before. He came to the conclusion that the single most important factor, by far, was the ready availability of abortion that started to come in after Roe v Wade. Other things, like more resources for policing and tougher sentencing policies, probably helped, but not nearly as much. I didn't at all get the impression that he had been expecting this result from the start, and just wanted to prove his point. He processed the data, and went where the numbers led him. That's how you're supposed to do science.
The clincher, at least as far as I was concerned, was the fact that crime statistics peaked at different points in different states, the peaks correlating very well with the dates when each state started making abortion available. States that brought it in early had correspondingly early peaks in their crime rates. It's hard to see how that could happen if Levitt's explanation weren't correct.
I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of Levitt's findings in the political world. Maybe it's just regarded as too hot to handle. But if Levitt is right, and at the moment I would say it's up to his critics to explain why he isn't, then pro-life campaigners would seem be heading in a very unfortunate direction.
_________________________
[Update, Jun 26 2022]
In view of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, I wonder which Republican-led states have started planning for the increased levels of crime that are to be expected fifteen to twenty years from now, and which ones have decided it won't be necessary. In the second case, it would be interesting to know why not. A couple of suggestions to get the ball rolling:
a) this is liberal science and can be discounted as political messaging,
b) the Rapture will occur first.
Levitt crunched the numbers, to see what proportion of the variance could be ascribed to the different factors. This is a completely standard technique; it just hadn't been used here before. He came to the conclusion that the single most important factor, by far, was the ready availability of abortion that started to come in after Roe v Wade. Other things, like more resources for policing and tougher sentencing policies, probably helped, but not nearly as much. I didn't at all get the impression that he had been expecting this result from the start, and just wanted to prove his point. He processed the data, and went where the numbers led him. That's how you're supposed to do science.
The clincher, at least as far as I was concerned, was the fact that crime statistics peaked at different points in different states, the peaks correlating very well with the dates when each state started making abortion available. States that brought it in early had correspondingly early peaks in their crime rates. It's hard to see how that could happen if Levitt's explanation weren't correct.
I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of Levitt's findings in the political world. Maybe it's just regarded as too hot to handle. But if Levitt is right, and at the moment I would say it's up to his critics to explain why he isn't, then pro-life campaigners would seem be heading in a very unfortunate direction.
_________________________
[Update, Jun 26 2022]
In view of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, I wonder which Republican-led states have started planning for the increased levels of crime that are to be expected fifteen to twenty years from now, and which ones have decided it won't be necessary. In the second case, it would be interesting to know why not. A couple of suggestions to get the ball rolling:
a) this is liberal science and can be discounted as political messaging,
b) the Rapture will occur first.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Freakonomics.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 2006
–
Finished Reading
December 20, 2008
– Shelved
December 20, 2008
– Shelved as:
science
December 20, 2008
– Shelved as:
well-i-think-its-funny
September 28, 2010
– Shelved as:
japanese
Comments Showing 1-50 of 72 (72 new)
He has a lot of fun stuff. I really liked the analysis showing that Sumo wrestlers throw matches. Very hard to find another way of explaining the numbers. The bit about petty office crime was great too (he tracks data from a bagel salesman who works on an honor system). There's an analysis of the corporate structure of drug dealer empires, which I think is one of the few bits which has already become generally accepted. And a nice piece tracking how baby names migrate from higher income brackets to lower ones. Some others I'm not bringing to mind right now. It's a really cool book!Going back to where we came in, he has an intuitive explanation of the abortion/crime link which made a lot of sense to me. As he points out, these are statistical trends, and there will always be plenty of exceptions. But, ON AVERAGE, what sort of person will you grow up to be if your mother would rather have killed you before you were born, except that she wasn't legally allowed to do it?
exactly. exactly. and are the pro-lifers lining up to adopt those kids? CAN they even adopt them? or help them in any way?
(ok, i actually don't know. if they are, then my outrage is unjustified. i can live with that.)
(ok, i actually don't know. if they are, then my outrage is unjustified. i can live with that.)
He has an anecdotal point that I loved. When CeauÅŸescu came to power, one of the first things he did was to make abortion illegal. He wanted more Romanians. 25 years later, when his regime fell, he was the only Eastern European leader to get lynched by the mob. As Levitt says: you can't help wondering whether the young men who lynched him were the ones that their mothers would have preferred to abort.
But yes, to answer your question: I think his book is even more important if you're a pro-lifer. As you say, it shows that you HAVE to introduce a well-funded adoption policy, otherwise you're being totally irresponsible.
Well stated, you two. Now go read The Cider House Rules. Man, I love that book.
Look, I love killing fetuses as much as the next guy, but I'm afraid there's just no way this argument will hold up to a pro-lifer. If you believe that the human fetus is a person with an inalienable right to life, vested by its creator with a soul, etc., then the question of the consequences of that life is totally immaterial. To say that abortion should be legal because it reduces urban crime rates sounds just as absurd to such an individual as that every urban criminal should be executed.
Well, I agree! As you say, to a pro-lifer it's murder. But most of these people are also pretty strong on law and order. I'd advise pro-lifers to interpret the result as underlining just how badly US society is failing the children of mothers who would like to have abortions. It demonstrates the absolutely critical need for a better adoption program.
Well, that's true.But you know, if our adoption programs get too strong, the puritanical fascists may make us give up the god-given right to kill our fetuses. Perhaps we better keep this all under wraps.
You know, take it a bit further, and you have an interesting philosophical question. If the State assumes all responsibility for any negative consequences that may follow from the woman's deciding to keep her fetus, is she still morally justified in getting an abortion? You assume that there are abortion lawyers who will plead her case to the best of their ability, and require compensation for the pain of giving birth, etc. And obviously, if her physical or mental health is at risk, she still gets an abortion - no reputable lawyer would take such a case.I must say, I really don't know! I think women's opinions are more relevant here though. If I were a woman, I wouldn't want guys deciding this one for me.
Manny, i have to disagree with you on this one. All because there is a correlation between abortions and the drop in crimes does not mean it is the only factor. Let's not forget that you may have one person who has had multiple abortions and then goes on to have 3 or 4 kids. This would cancel out any 'benefits' of legalising abortions. Let's not start promoting abortions as the new way of dealing with the real problem of poverty and poor education.
King, it isn't the only factor! Read the book. It's just the largest one. And you definitely don't need to interpret this as saying that you should promote abortion. All it says is that, when a mother would have preferred to abort her unborn child, that child has a higher than average chance of becoming a criminal. Not such a controversial statement, I would claim...
And I would agree, the research on that can not be disputed. But the issue here is whether the introduction of abortion led to a very significant drop in crime. There is definitely a corelation but is it really the largest factor? Do we assume that a woman would keep aborting if let's say she fell pregnant 2 or 3 times a year? Let's not forget that the contraceptive pill was introduced in the 60s and may have only become widely prevalent in the 70s. Could we not assume that this had a much lager impact as it is a more simpler and much more appealing method of birth control.
Anyway, there is no point arguing, abortion rates have been dropping very significantly Every year for the last 20 years, if this book is right then we should expect another major crime epidemic about....Now.
I'm going to write a book about how global warming has affected crime. Lol
I'd say its conclusion about abortion is that women pretty much know when it's a good idea or a bad idea right now for them to have a child. I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, safe, and rare, meaning we give women and children much better options than they have right now, causing them to choose to bring their babies to term far more often, in other words using loving means of persuasion rather than force. It does seem to me that pro-lifers are often thinking punitively rather than thinking in empathy with the fetus or child. Would you rather be raised by a mom who wished you were dead in a society which cares little for poor women and children? Or would you rather your mom give you up for adoption to people who love babies and plan to give you love, good nutrition, medical care, education, and a stable family? The book made a good case that letting women decide about their own reproduction is sound social policy. Now if we want them to decide less often in favor of terminating pregnancies, we need to make motherhood less economically devastating than it is.
Tatiana, I'm totally with you on this one.I should say that Notgettingenough looked around to see what new material there was available. The conclusions of Levitt's research have been heavily questioned. I was however unsure how seriously to take the criticisms, given that they in turn had been questioned by people who accused the relevant researchers of having an explicit pro-life agenda. (I didn't at all get the impression that Levitt was particularly pro-choice).
It is bad that science, particularly in the US, is becoming so heavily politicized.
Blah, blah,blah......statistics or not, it is only common sense to KNOW that for ANY child born or to be born there MUST be financial, nutritional, educational, and supportive social burdens or, needs to be met. Thus, the case for determining whether a child has a chance to be a productive citizen in life or a problem citizen in life. Here is where the data makes more sense than any theory or fact. Give a female the proper education of child rearing, give the child the proper tools to become productive then watch the data jump all over the place. But the real case is here, IN ANY SOCIETY, IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE THEM, SO IT TAKES TWO TO CARE, LOVE , FEED, SUPPORT AND EDUCATE every single human bring that breathes the breath of earths atmosphere. Take away any one or combination of the said factors and there is your chance to prove the coming criminal!!!......
Hi Manny, this one wasn't for me. However, I ran the numbers for goodreads 'best books' of the year for 2015 and found non-normal data. Or should I just say 'absolutely f***ing impossible numbers" for two books voted best of the year; "Go Set a Watchman' and "Girl on a Train.' Does it matter? Well, publishers have used these 'awards' to push their books. Oh, and about "pro-life", I know what you mean, and I know what Levitt means, and I agree with you and the author. That said, seems to me that everyone is 'pro-life" and the term has been used to indicate there are people who are "anti-life", and that's just not true.
"It's not really about economics." Everything is about Economics :-)
Well, in the broadest interpretation of the word...
Manny, my son is a budding economist - he just finished high school and is about join an undergraduate course. Will this book be a good birthday gift for him?
I'm not sure... really, it's much more about statistical analysis than economics. But it's definitely a lot of fun!
There is another theory about rising and declining of crime rates. According to which the data perfectly corelate with effects of Lead poisoning, Lead was used to increase the effectiveness of gasoline in vehicles. Lead takes few years to show its behavior effects in people (tested in lab rats). As soon as people realized its harmful effects different states reduced its use on different times, data of which correlates with decrease in crime rates.I know humans are not robots whose behavior can be changed by chemicals but in statistics percentage due differ with such things.
I read it in an article of James Clear (Atomic habits' author), And I didn't check the validity of data and claims.
I am pro choice and am horrified at the overturning of Roe v Wade but there may be other factors that contribute to the crime rate too. One of the theories is how leaded gasoline exposed children to lead and the lead poisoning is what led to the rise in crime rates 20 or so years later.I tried to post a link to a Forbes article but GR wouldn't let me. Anyone interested can Google "crime rate correlation with leaded gasoline" and it'll lead you there.
They don't say this is the only factor, just the most important one.
I wonder if Levitt's theory applies to crime rates in other countries?
I seem to recall some speculation about that, but I read this book a while ago.
My hunch is that if it was true, it would apply elsewhere as well. Otherwise, you'd need to explain why it was a particularly American thing.
I think they just didn't have as much data to work from. The great thing with the US from that viewpoint was that you could compare different states.
My wife and I were just talking about this topic in this book this morning. I can tell you right now that the religious crusaders have not thought at all about the social repercussions of this decision.
No more than British Conservatives thought about the social repercussions of Brexit.
And Clarence Thomas is openly talking about going after birth control and same sex marriage. They want a theocracy.
Interesting slip....."Illinois Republican tells Trump rally that Roe verdict a ‘victory for white life�"
I will at least say in Boris Johnson's defence that he appears to believe in the separation of Church and State.
I studied it all in college. The Framers had very good reasons for such separation. They looked at Europe and saw how the meddling between Church & State (e.g. in France) only led to trouble.But we have the remnants of Puritanism here that saw America as the new Zion, a city on a hill, a light to the world, and some not only want to cling to that, but also impose it.
Freakonomics is a great book. Super interesting and thought provoking. Full stop.
Well, as most of those red states are thoughtfully subsidized by the wealthier blue states, those red states will just rework their subsidized budgets by trimming ever more from a threadbare safety net and build more prisons that shows data that crime is rising so that they can then ask for more federal dollars so as to staunch the gushing wound they inflicted on themselves. Oh. And that money will go to their buddies building the private prisons because, you know, capitalism in all things.
Oh. I thought it was Christianity.
Weird. Le Chat thought the same, more exactly - Extremist- Christianity.
Actually, there's something that's kind of bothering me about the logic of this policy. American conservatives are always going on about the White Replacement Theory. But making abortion illegal is going to make it proportionally harder for non-white women to get abortions, so whites are going to be replaced even faster.What am I missing here? Perhaps the plan is that enough non-white women will die in illegal abortions that the whites come out ahead?
I just read that " ...only 1% of evangelicals believe it is religiously extreme for a person to teach his children that same-sex relationships are morally wrong. But Le Chat has problems defining the term " moral ".
What do evangelicals think is religiously extreme? I must admit that the question hadn't occurred to me before.
I think first of all, here a dissociation must be made between extremism and violence, strange as it may seem, though. I'm still reading.
It's true, Ukraine is right now doing a good job of showing the world that you can be violent without being extremist.
True. Even Sex has moments when I could consider him violent, but never extremist. Yet..
Manny wrote: "What do evangelicals think is religiously extreme? I must admit that the question hadn't occurred to me before."Not thinking like them.
Michael wrote: "And Clarence Thomas is openly talking about going after birth control and same sex marriage. They want a theocracy."He’s just being consistent.
Esteban wrote: "Manny wrote: "What do evangelicals think is religiously extreme? I must admit that the question hadn't occurred to me before."Not thinking like them."
But do they actually call it religiously extreme?
Sorry, it's been a while since I last visited the US and I'm starting to forget how evangelicals speak. They exist in Australia, but their vocabulary is quite different.
I think their view is akin to Goldwater’s � extremism in the defense of (religion) is no vice. If you don’t think like them, there is no extreme they won’t go to because the goalposts keep moving based on their wants. They don’t practice extremism. YOU, the unbeliever, bring any perceived extremism about because, like a rape victim, you were asking for it.
So no. I don’t think they’d call it extremism. They’d call it god’s love. Now pull yourself up by your bootstraps, go wash off your whore body, and let’s pretend this never happened. Oh to be evangelized by an Australian. How adorable! Do they try to sign you up for healthcare and see if you’re hungry?
what other topics are included, manny?