The police,crime, and economic theory: A replication and extension

Based on insights garnered from rational choice theory, Loftin and McDowall hypothesize that there is likely to be a reciprocal relationship, over time, within jurisdictions between police force strength and crime. Contrary to expectations, their ARIMA analyses of the association between total police force employment and the total crime rate for Detriot during the period of 1926 to 1977 produce null findings. As a result, they conclude that rational choice models are too simplistic to explain the relationship between the agency size and crime. It is our contention that this conclusion might be premature. We suggest that a failure to disaggregate total police force employment into its component sectors may be masking substantial reciprocal effects. The present investigation employs ARIMA techniques to model the reciprocal relationship between total, patrol, and detective police employment and total, property, and personal, robbery crimes in Milwaukee for the years 1930 to 1987. Consistent with previous research we report null findings between total police employment and total crime rates. However, the findings also reveal significant reciprocal relationships between the disaggregated measures of police size and crime. The implications of these results for rational choice theory are discussed.     

Autonomy and Egalitarianism

In this article I consider the alleged incompatibility between individual autonomy and the achievement and subsequent maintenance of an egalitarian society. I argue that not only is there no incompatibility, but that it is only where an egalitarian society is in place that a like autonomy can be exercised by each citizen. To make out my case I discuss the three main grounds that have been advanced to show there is such an incompatibility. Opponents of egalitarianism contend that egalitarian goals can only be achieved with losses in autonomy; in particular, losses through infringements on the civil liberties of individual citizens, losses in the scope individuals have to exercise and exploit their own talents and losses in control over the income and wealth to which individuals are entitled as a result of the exercise of their talents. The first of these contentions is dealt with quite briefly but the second and third go to the heart of the matter and accordingly are given fuller discussion. None of the three can be convincingly made out because it is precisely where there are significant inequalities in income and wealth that significant differences exist in the scope individuals have to fulfil their life-plans and thus to exercise their individual autonomy.