Ecomomist Steve Levitt’s nemesis, Steve Sailer, predicted that a hot-shot young economist would make a name for himself by debunking Levitt’s abortion-reduced-crime theory found in the pages of the bestseller, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything.
A couple of economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found some coding errors in Levitt’s research. I don’t know how young and hot they are, but here’s the deal:
Mr. Levitt asserts there is a link between the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s and the drop in crime rates in the 1990s. Christopher Foote, a senior economist at the Boston Fed, and Christopher Goetz, a research assistant, say the research behind that conclusion is faulty…
The theory: 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 Boston Fed’s Mr. Foote says he spotted a missing formula in the programming of Mr. Levitt’s original research. (Source)
In response, Levitt writes, “This is personally quite embarrassing because I pride myself on being careful with data.” Download a PDF copy of the “debunking” paper.
I don’t think Levitt ought to be too worried about coding errors even if they blow the whole theory apart because most people couldn’t care less about statistics and economics, although they should. Several months ago Levitt and Sailer (and here) both commented on a post I’d written titled Steven Levitt Says Child Killing Reduces Crime.
I don’t care about stats as much as I should, either, but Sailer’s response to Levitt sounded more convincing than Levitt’s theory. It’s sort of like obscenity: I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it. Sailer wrote:
Did legalizing abortion in the early ’70s reduce crime in the late ’90s by allowing “pre-emptive capital punishment†of potential troublemakers? Or did the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, by outmoding shotgun weddings, adoption, and respect for life, instead make more murderous the early ’90s crack wars fought by the first generation of youths to survive legalized abortion? (Source)
Yeah, that one.
I encourage you to read both articles cited above, then hop on over to Sailer’s abortion page to see how this male cat fight evolved (I mean that in a good way, boys…). 
Related post: What Bill Bennett Said
Bloggers’ links:
- Steve Levitt’s blog
- Steve Sailer’s blog
- Gregg Jackson’s abortion post
I wrote this post about abortions being The issue that won’t go away back in October. As usual, it brought on a firestorm of controversy by my liberal left readers.
I would say that the left, pro-abortion advocates believe that they are taking the moral high ground (so to speak) by being compassionate towards the woman who seeks an abortion in order to get out of the dilemma she has brought herself into (with the help of the impregnator, mind you) and THIS “need” of hers outweighs any other need (e.g. the unborn child’s helplessness, no voice to articulate that he/she WANTS to live) purpose, or moral view that would trump what she can do ‘with her own body’.
My view is that a woman who gets pregnant LOSES that right to do ‘with her own body’ what she wills. That life inside of her is NOT part of her body, it is separate and will become (if allowed) a life of his/her own when ready to leave that body.
Comment by Christine — 12.01.05 @ 3:05 pm
LaShawn Barber has a very interesting post today that discusses some issues around Steve Levitt’s book Freakonomic’s. Mr Levitt advanced a argument that the legalization of abortion lead to reduced crime rates a generation later. It seems that there may have been some flaw’s in his math. The flaw was discovered by some economists from Boston’s Federal Reserve.
Pingback by Swap Blog — 12.01.05 @ 3:10 pm
Wow, Sailer’s response is outstanding! I’m on the way over to read more!
Comment by Mark La Roi — 12.01.05 @ 3:43 pm
Hey, men don’t have cat fights, we have dog fights.
It is good that the men are having such a discussion about abortion, and having it intelligently at that. More men need to stand up and do the same.
I love Mr. Sailer’s writing, very concise, detailed, and with a nice touch of wit. Good stuff.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 12.01.05 @ 4:04 pm
A few comments:
1) Overall, this is hardly decisive. It certainly calls Leavitt’s work into doubt, but as Leavitt’s post explains the effects remain at a weaker magnitude.
2) Saying “I know it when I see it” doesn’t really work for economics. If it did, these questions (along with questions about the NAIRU, or how to prevent capital flights, or recessions) wouldn’t exist. We’d know the answers and always have great economies worldwide.
3)
I don’t think Levitt ought to be too worried about coding errors even if they blow the whole theory apart because most people couldn’t care less about statistics and economics, although they should.
I agree that this won’t hurt Leavitt’s popular reputation becaue not many people will care (or understand). But it is quite a professional gaffe.
4) Sailer’s theory is also plausible if we don’t consider any data. That’s why we do econometrics. If he’s right, 70’s abortion rates should be correlated positively with early 90’s drug violence. That’s a testable hypothesis for someone with data and a computer.
And is he really upholding shotgun weddings as a goal?
Comment by ptm — 12.01.05 @ 4:10 pm
Regarding my 5.4 above - of course I meant correlated in a cross-sectional way - earlier loosening of abortion laws in a given area would (partially) cause earlier increases in drug violence.
Comment by ptm — 12.01.05 @ 4:27 pm
Freakonomics is a pretty stupid theory based just on the concept alone. But, now the data has be proven to be flawed just proves it is a dumb theory. Crime is not a birth right. People commit crimes for a ton of reasons and the last possible reason is how they were conceived. But, then again if we lived a vacuum and everything was an absolute Freakonomics is a perfect theory.
Comment by Clayton Bigsby — 12.01.05 @ 5:46 pm
I guess I neither know nor care about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Our country as a whole got on the “abortion is legal train” with Roe V. Wade. Whether the prevalence of abortion has lowered crime or not is great conversation, but beyond that, it is geek food for statisticians. No matter what the answer may be, it will not have a bit of impact on the culture.
Those of religious faith know that the mother is the vessel that carries life. Those who eschew religious faith see the abortion clinic as a co-equal of that part of the SPCA which “eliminates strays.”
When we treat pregnancy as an outcome that can be erased easily rather than as an obligation to nurture an important new life, we are looking at pregnancy from a strictly science and mathematics viewpoint.
Certainly, how a society treats its children greatly affects the society in return. When we freely pass out condoms, put young girls on birth control, and accept the abortion clinic as one of the “rites of passage” we have surrendered nurture to science and the state.
We have developed terrific science for saving life in the womb and sustaining babies that arrive critically prematurely. But when it comes to abortion, if someone developed an automatic abortion chamber I am afraid there would be one in every drug store.
Meanwhile, the arguments about the statistics surrounding the culture of abortion only serve to detract from the core of the debate.
It is not a choice. It is a human life. God given.
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.01.05 @ 6:03 pm
The data wasn’t proved to be flawed. Only part of the analysis is flawed and it doesn’t necessary change the results. Read the article before you post.
If you read Sailer’s work he’s inherently racist and tends to try to use statistical methods to back up his arguments. Unfortunately he lacks and real and understanding of stats, economics, genetics, etc. to really prove a legitimate argument.
Comment by JohnT — 12.01.05 @ 6:15 pm
Those of religious faith know that the mother is the vessel that carries life. Those who eschew religious faith see the abortion clinic as a co-equal of that part of the SPCA which “eliminates strays.†— Heliotrope.
While Heliotrope is omnisicient enough to sum up of the views of all both of religious faith and without in two neat sentences, let’s use his divide as a basis for discussion. While simplistic and inaccurate, why not allow those of religious faith to exercise their faith by eschewing abortions, and those without to similarlly act out thier conscience (or lack thereof?)
It is not the government’s role to replace churches as the primary moral agents of society. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of this and made this abundantly clear. These attacks on traditional American values by those who hate America, its ideals, its founding principles, and its freedoms must be turned back. It is the personal responsibility of every American to stand up for freedom and liberty and protect the hard won rights of the American revolution.
Comment by Bleacher Dave — 12.01.05 @ 7:59 pm
“LaShawn Barber notes that author of the blockbuster book “Freakanomics” Steve Levitt has some explaining to do regarding a claim made therein whereby increasing abortion decreases crime.”
Comment by american_zealot — 12.01.05 @ 8:15 pm
The only thing that reduces crime is a healthy economy. It is no secret that during the Dot-com boom when people had money and job security crime was down. Just look around today as middle class jobs go overseas crime is slowly rising. You do not need to be a Ph.D to understand this just a little common sense.
Comment by Clayton Bigsby — 12.01.05 @ 9:06 pm
At the end of the day, don’t you think religion has a lot to do with the way our lives are dealt with. For example Singapore killed Van for trafficing, do you think that would have happened in a less religious country, the same for abortion, religion in many countries stops this happening but takes lives later on for different reasons, it all balances out
Comment by Smorty — 12.02.05 @ 12:18 am
There’s a mistake in the original blog - one of the links erroneously says ” Steven Sailer Says Child Killing Reduces Crime.” “Steven Sailer” should be “Steve Levitt” of course, as it was in the original post months ago.
Sailer gets so much flack for saying politically incorrect things that he should not be saddled with that one.
Eek! That was nasty, wasn’t it? Sorry Sailer! - Admin
Comment by Next Level — 12.02.05 @ 4:37 am
The point made by “Bleacher Dave” in comment #10 is the at the core of the abortion debate. Bleacher Dave asks why those who do not consider the mother to be the vessel that carries life, should not be allowed to independently choose to abort (whatever it is) or not.
The issue is not the choice: it is what the “whatever it is” is. Sort of like Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of is is.”
Does science define the embryo, fetus and baby differently depending on whether the mother is of religious faith or a “free spirit”?
When one “ends the living future” of an organism, it is final for the organism. Science has no confusion about when the life of an organism commences. To halt the life of an organism, it is necessary to kill the organism. I did not say murder.
What are the rules for killing the human organism? So far, we have ignored the basic question and fooled around with the attributes of “human” instead.
This is not “omnisicient” so much as it is basic to understanding the debate.
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.02.05 @ 8:49 pm
Isn’t Steve Sailer that guy who touts white supremacy via Charles Murray’s dubious intelligence tests?
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 12.03.05 @ 6:34 pm
• The Quality of Mercy: Story says England is rocked by two Christian women practicing their faith and forgiving criminals • Farmworkers change jobs for better pay: “(Illegals) may number as high as 20 million, with 12 million to 15 million holding jobs, according to analysts at Bear Stearns in New York.” • Steve Levitt admits error in Freakanomics’ abortion theory • Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar • 4-year scandal of the 9/11 billions • For Disney, Pitching ‘Narnia’ To Christians A Delicate Affair: I almost had Tuesday night, sneak preview tix. Almost. • It’s USC vs. Texas: But you knew that before yesterday. • Red Cross bolstering minority outreach • Instant millions can’t halt winners’ grim slide • When corporations pull the rug out: LA Times columnist Al Martinez survives • Professor loses weight with the No-diet Diet: Is this like the “eat all the bacon you want” diet?
Pingback by Urban Onramps — 12.05.05 @ 12:54 am