Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2020 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 46

Economic Analysis of Crime: An Application on Turkey and European Countries

Suçun İktisadi Analizi: Türkiye ve Avrupa Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Uygulama

Pages
349–370
Publication Date
2020-10-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Empirical results indicate that income, education and welfare level rises decrease crime while unemployment, price level and inequality increase it.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The crime creates important threats for societies and economies in terms of both microeconomic and macroeconomic theory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:From the microeconomic perspective, the effects of variables such as income, unemployment, education, and inequality on crime are investigated while macroeconomic analyses focus on the negative effects of crime on economic growth since it decreases competitiveness, deters foreign investors, and increases inefficient public expenditures.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Empirical results indicate that income, education and welfare level rises decrease crime while unemployment, price level and inequality increase it.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Suç Ekonomisi · Suç Modelleri · Ekonomik Büyüme

Abstract

The crime creates important threats for societies and economies in terms of both microeconomic and macroeconomic theory. From the microeconomic perspective, the effects of variables such as income, unemployment, education, and inequality on crime are investigated while macroeconomic analyses focus on the negative effects of crime on economic growth since it decreases competitiveness, deters foreign investors, and increases inefficient public expenditures. This study analyses socioeconomic determinants of crime and the impact of crime on economic growth by using panel data techniques for the data of 25 European countries in which Turkey as well is included for the period 1993-2012. Empirical results indicate that income, education and welfare level rises decrease crime while unemployment, price level and inequality increase it. In addition, empirical results confirm that the crime has a negative impact on economic growth.

Özet

Suç hem mikro iktisadi açıdan hem de makro iktisadi açıdan toplumlar ve ekonomiler için önemli tehditler içermektedir. Mikro analizlerde gelir, işsizlik, eğitim, eşitsizlik gibi değişkenlerin suç üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Makro analizlerde ise suçun rekabet gücünü azaltacağı, yabancı yatırımcıları caydıracağı, özel ve kamu fonlarının suç önlemeye yönelik verimsiz alanlara aktarılmasına sebep olacağı değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çalışma Türkiye’nin dahil edildiği 25 Avrupa ülkesinde, suçun sosyoekonomik belirleyicilerini ve ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisini analiz etmektedir. Elde edilen sonuçlar gelir, eğitim, refah düzeyinin suçları negatif; işsizlik, fiyat artışı ve eşitsizliğin ise suçları pozitif etkilediğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, sonuçlar suçun ekonomik büyüme üzerinde negatif etkiye sahip olduğunu doğrulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ULUCAK, Z. Ş., BİLGİLİ, F. (2020). Economic Analysis of Crime: An Application on Turkey and European Countries. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 46, 349–370. https://ajindex.com/articles/139302

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Acemoglu, D. & S. Johnson (2003), Unbundling Institutions (No. 9934),, 23.12.2019.
  2. Altindag, D.T. (2012), “Crime and unemployment: Evidence from Europe”, International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 145-157.
  3. Bai, J. & C. Kao & S. Ng (2009), “Panel cointegration with global stochastic trends”, Journal of Econometrics, 149(1), 82-99.
  4. Bai, J. & C. Kao (2006), “Chapter 1 On the Estimation and Inference of a Panel Cointegration Model with Cross-Sectional Dependence”, Contributions to Economic Analysis, 274, 3-30.
  5. Baltagi, B.H. (2006), “Estimating an economic model of crime using panel data from North Carolina”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 21(4), 543-547.
  6. Baltagi, B.H. (2015), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (Fifth), New York, NY: Wiley. Barro, R.J. (1990), “Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogeneous Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 103-125.
  7. Becker, G.S. (1968), “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach”, Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.
  8. Biagi, B. & C. Detotto (2014), “Crime as Tourism Externality”, Regional Studies, 48(4), 693-709.
  9. Britt, C.L. (1997), “Reconsidering the Unemployment and Crime Relationship: Variation by Age Group and Historical Period”, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13, 405-428.
  10. Brush, J. (2007), “Does income inequality lead to more crime? A comparison of cross-sectional and time-series analyses of United States counties”, Economics Letters, 96(2), 264-268.
  11. Burnham, R. & R.M. Feinberg & T.A. Husted (2004), “Central city crime and suburban economic growth”, Applied Economics, 36(9), 917-922.
  12. Chintrakarn, P. & D. Herzer D. (2012), “More inequality, more crime? A panel cointegration analysis for the United States”, Economics Letters, 116(3), 389-391.
  13. Choi, I. (2015), “Panel Cointegration”, içinde: B.H. Baltagi (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Panel Data, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 46-75.
  14. Chukwudum, B. & O. Ifeanyi (2016), “Income Inequality: Impact of Inequality Measures on Crimes An Analysis of the State of New Jersey”, International Journal of Business and Social Research, 6(4), 12-27.
  15. Cornwell, C. & W.N. Trumbull (1994), “Estimating the Economic Model of Crime with Panel Data”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2), 360-366.
  16. Deadman, D. & Z. MacDonald (2002), “Why has crime fallen? An economic perspective”, Economic Affairs, 22(3), 5-14.
  17. Demombynes, G. & B. Özler (2005), “Crime and local inequality in South Africa”, Journal of Development Economics, 76(2), 265-292. Detot