PFBlog logo

Consumerism Commentary

Striving for personal financial security.

  Channel Home | Automobile (10) | Benefits (1) | Bills and Coins (3) | Blogs (2) | Budget (1) | Carnival (3) | Charity (4) | Children (2) | Commercials (1) | Consumerism (11) | Credit (8) | Credit Cards (5) | Deals (4) | Debt (1) | Economy (15) | Education (7) | Expenses (7) | Financial Advisors (2) | Flexo Style (23) | Food (2) | Frugal (4) | Fun (1) | Gas (3) | Gurus (2) | Inflation (2) | Internet (10) | Investing (39) | Loans (2) | Millionaires (7) | News (4) | Other (4) | People (2) | Publications (3) | Real Estate (21) | Retirement (12) | Saving (25) | Shopping (6) | Society (3) | Sports (1) | Taxes (4) | Vacation (1) | Website (3) | Working (36) | Contact Me

Abortion and Crime - Freakonomics Disputed

I have not yet read Freakonomics, but I have heard good things about the book from friends. Apparently one chapter within the book discusses the effect of correlation between the legalization of abortion in the 1970s on and the amount of crime in the 1990s.

An article in the Wall Street Journal [free] explains the premise:

Unwanted children are more likely to become troubled adolescents, prone to crime and drug use, than are wanted children. When abortion was legalized in the 1970s, a whole generation of unwanted births were averted, leading to a drop in crime nearly two decades later when this phantom generation would have come of age.

The article then disputes, or cites other economists who dispute, the statistics gathered in the study

The Boston Fed's Mr. Foote says he spotted a missing formula in the programming of Mr. Levitt's original research. He argues the programming oversight made it difficult to pick up other factors that might have influenced crime rates during the 1980s and 1990s, like the crack wave that waxed and waned during that period.

The authors of Freakonomics are on the defense and have struck back on their blog with a preliminary response.

This is where I like to say there's a certain percentage of statistics that are made up. Let's say 97%. I'm not claiming that Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner invented numbers to support their theory, and the WSJ article doesn't contain enough information to debunk their entire research on the subject. I'll be interested in seeing how the disagreement plays out.

This post was brought to you by Consumerism Commentary. More comments (4) may be found here.mortgage calculator

What do you think of this post? Be the first to share your opinions.
Similar Posts

Review of The Number by Lee Eisenberg (December 18, 2005)
On Consumerism Commentary, I took an in-depth look at the new book scheduled to be released next month, The Number, by Lee Eisenberg. Here are links to each section of the five-part review: Part 1: Overview Part 2: Determining The Number Part 3: Effect ... Read
Money Magazine (March 18, 2005)
Have you perused the first issue of the reformulated Money Magazine? I had a chance to do so this morning. Read

Read all 3 articles in the same category.
Comments

Mail This Post
Email addresses will never be collected or sold.
Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):


PREMIUM SPONSORS

Low Home Equity Rates!
Health Insurance
Life Insurance Canada
Adjustable Rate Mortgage
Credit Cards
Car Insurance
Personal Loans
0% Balance Transfers
Bad Credit Personal Loans
HELOC Ideas
Universal Life Insurance
American Life Insurance
Canadian Life Insurance
Credit Cards




Google
Web PFBlog

WHAT I READ

WSJ
CBS MarketWatch
CNN Money
NY Times: Business
SmartMoney
Kiplinger
Morningstar
The Motley Fool

Saving Advice
Consumerism
    Commentary

It's Your Money
AllThingsFinancial

POWERED BY

Join the world's largest Web Host! Movable Type 2.64