Video
It’s always interesting to see where smart people get their ideas. Often, especially in the creative arts, it’s impossible to trace an idea down to its roots. But it’s easier in the social sciences.
I, for one, believe that Steve Levitt has had an awful lot of good research ideas, and it’s good to hear how a particular idea germinated. In our latest Freakonomics video, Levitt talks about the research that led to his most controversial paper, “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime,” co-authored by John Donohue. We wrote about this subject at some length in Freakonomics, and there was more than a little bit of blowback. This video is the first of a two- or three-part series.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I don’t want to believe that abortion causes low crime rates. Yes, that’s a declaration of bias. At the same time, I found the initial argument compelling. There are severe holes, though. The biggest is that a similar crime drop happened in Canada, in which abortion wasn’t legalized until much later. A smaller one is that during that time period, population didn’t shrink — suggesting that other effects (perhaps derived from immigration) might be drowning out the alleged effects of abortion.
I don’t want to believe that abortion causes low crime rates. Yes, that’s a declaration of bias. At the same time, I found the initial argument compelling. There are severe holes, though. The biggest is that a similar crime drop happened in Canada, in which abortion wasn’t legalized until much later. A smaller one is that during that time period, population didn’t shrink — suggesting that other effects (perhaps derived from immigration) might be drowning out the alleged effects of abortion.
@Nile
I don’t think this is necessarily so. I am very much pro-life and have absolutely no problem with what Mr. Levitt has presented over the past several years on this issue.
@Nile
I don’t think this is necessarily so. I am very much pro-life and have absolutely no problem with what Mr. Levitt has presented over the past several years on this issue.
@ William Tanksley
I don’t know what time frame you are referencing with your stats of Canada, but could it be that the similar crime drop in Canada corresponded to the legalization of abortion in the states? The border with Canada has always been easier to cross and a large majority of the Canadian populations lives within driving distance of US cities.
Just a thought.
@ William Tanksley
I don’t know what time frame you are referencing with your stats of Canada, but could it be that the similar crime drop in Canada corresponded to the legalization of abortion in the states? The border with Canada has always been easier to cross and a large majority of the Canadian populations lives within driving distance of US cities.
Just a thought.
I did a calculation once for a campus political group I was part of–I assumed more liberal people are both slightly more likely to both have an abortion, and to raise liberal (i.e., Democratic) children–by, say, a 55-45 margin. This means that Democrats have lost a permanent electoral advantage of 2.25 million potential voters, which is growing every year. (Note that ALL young voters went for Kerry in 2004 by 55-45, and this excludes their parents’ political orientations’ effect–55-45 is probably low).
To make a conservative estimate, say 2 million potential voters, at 50% turnout. That’s a 1% swing–enough to have given Kerry Ohio and New Mexico, put Ohio in play, and given the Democrats 2-4 Senate seats.
I did a calculation once for a campus political group I was part of–I assumed more liberal people are both slightly more likely to both have an abortion, and to raise liberal (i.e., Democratic) children–by, say, a 55-45 margin. This means that Democrats have lost a permanent electoral advantage of 2.25 million potential voters, which is growing every year. (Note that ALL young voters went for Kerry in 2004 by 55-45, and this excludes their parents’ political orientations’ effect–55-45 is probably low).
To make a conservative estimate, say 2 million potential voters, at 50% turnout. That’s a 1% swing–enough to have given Kerry Ohio and New Mexico, put Ohio in play, and given the Democrats 2-4 Senate seats.