Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • At this point one must remember that

    2018-11-15

    At this point, one must remember that the two hypotheses stated in Section 1: (i) income has a positive nonlinear effect on repeat victimization by property crimes (theft, robbery, attempted theft/robbery), and (ii) income has a negative nonlinear effect on repeat victimization by crimes against a person (physical assault). Table 6 shows the marginal effects calculated from repeat victimization models. Our results indicate that, on the one hand, income has a positive nonlinear effect on the amount of times an individual was victimized by property crimes in a one-year period. On the other hand, evidence is provided of a negative nonlinear effect on physical assault. So the hypotheses tested here are not rejected. This evidence reinforces the economic approach, namely, that income determines victimization based on two factors: economic attractiveness and investment in self-protection. This approach was presented in Section 2. The results also corroborate the sociological thesis according to which wealthier people are less exposed to the risk of suffering aggravated physical aggression such as physical assault, for instance. The first important point to make is that the variables and sign found for simple victimization remains virtually unchanged when we analyze the repeat victimization model. This piece of evidence reinforces our suspicion that the net effect of the main variables on repeat victimization is the same when compared to simple victimization. Moreover, it purchase AZD1208 corroborates the idea that it is possible to use the traditional sociological approach proposed by Cohen et al. (1981) to analyze repeat victimization as well. Similarly, the economic approach used in Gaviria and Pagés (2002) is also useful for this purpose. This is an important issue that was clarified in this study. Our results indicate that crimes increase in average if a person is male, older, lives in an urban area, studies or works, is highly educated, works for many hours a week and has a higher income. On the other hand, a person is more protected against repeat victimization if he or she is white or Asian (for consummated theft only). A protective relationship was found for married people and for those who live in a house. As in the case of simple victimization, the variables that control for being a student and having more years of schooling increase the chances of repeat victimization by property crimes, but the effect is inverted in the case of repeat physical assault. The results also suggest that owning a vehicle reduces the risk of victimization by robbery and assault, despite its economic attractiveness effect for criminals (see Osborn et al., 1996). We also found that for some variables, such as being a student and years of schooling, the effect is inverted according to the type of victimization, as risk factors turn into protective factors in the case of physical assault.
    Concluding remarks We found evidence supporting the tested hypotheses that income has a positive nonlinear effect on the number of times an individual was victimized by property crimes, but that it has a negative nonlinear effect on physical assault – a crime against a person. The former result was also observed by Carvalho and Lavor (2008) for theft/robbery, and by Lauritsen and Quinet (1995) for robbery in a sample of young people and adolescents in the United States. The latter result was also observed by Lauritsen and Quinet (1995) for physical assault. Our results corroborate the main evidence found by Carvalho and Lavor (2008), although the marginal effects were different because three crimes against property were analyzed separately here. Moreover, the set of regressors is different.
    Introduction Developing economies have in common the presence of a large number of unproductive businesses, which are financed by and survive at the expense of productive activities. These type of parasitic activities assume several forms, such as violent criminal organizations and gangs affiliated with corrupt politicians. Although parasites do not produce, they have the same objective as a regular firm, namely profit. Economic consequences of parasitic activities may be very serious, such that it is possible that it could result in an economy falling into a poverty trap (Mehlum et al., 2003a).