April 17, 2005CausationThe next book I buy will be Steven Levitt's Freakonomics. In the proud tradition of Thomas Sowell (although apparently without the pious undertones) Levitt applies the hard science of economics to the squishy questions of American life. Steven Landsburg highlights some of the puzzles that Levitt solves in his review of the book. Like the patterns of test score data that prove certain Chicago public-school teachers guilty of inflating their students standardized test scores. Most importantly, Levitt applies the scientific method to reach objective, indisputable conclusions, based on causation and not merely correlation. Other of life's little puzzles are addressed by Mr. Levitt, such as "why do so many drug dealers live with their mothers" and which parenting strategies work and which don't?" (The teaser on this last one is "it turns out that reading to your children has no appreciable effect on their academic success.") But the issue that really grabbed my attention is related to a favorite topic on these pages of late - Roe v. Wade. Why, Levitt wondered, did crime rates fall precipitously in the 1990's, just 18 years after the Roe decision? As Landsburg summarizes, "Did crime fall because hundreds of thousands of prospective criminals had been aborted? Once again, the pattern by itself is not conclusive, but once again Mr. Levitt piles pattern on pattern until the evidence overwhelms you. The bottom line? Legalized abortion was the single biggest factor in bringing the crime wave of the 1980s to a screeching halt." So-called "pro-life" activists argue that every infant should be born because there is a loving and caring home waiting for him somewhere in the world. But what about the millions who are born into disfunctional families of one sort or another, and have the additional misfortune of being "unwanted?" Each is at much greater risk for anti-social behavior in his later years, including the casual sex that breeds future generations like himself. Some people may not "like" the conclusions that a method like this comes to but as Landsburg says, "economics is about what is true, not what ought to be true." If you genuinely want to do something about one of reality's problems it is indispensably helpful to know what that reality is. Economics and Markets Posted by JohnGalt at April 17, 2005 11:30 AM |
Harrumph! I haven't read any of the author's work, but you can color me skeptical.
One who claims to use the hard, empirical science of economics would seem to be taking a big leap with this theory. Reading to kids does not affect their test scores, yet a parent who practices abortion would have raised a criminal?
Lastly, you again conflate your support of legalized abortion (which I can appreciate at some level as a little-l-libertarian), with the bad law that Roe v. Wade is, claiming a Constitutional right from eminumbras and premanations.
I'm tempted to stick with Dr. Sowell...
Posted by: jk at April 17, 2005 5:38 PMI wait for four days and still, only ONE comment on this topic? Our advertising dollars must be wasted when that's all the action I get with a blog that claims abortion is "good" for "society."
Very well then.
As a political realist JK certainly can't argue that our 'three branches' governmental system is perfect. So why would he take offense at Roe for reaching the right decision (even he agrees with "at some level") for the "wrong" reasons? (Which I'm not stipulating are wrong, by the way.) I'm more concerned with wrong conclusions for the wrong reasons. (Yes, I know some people believe Roe is "wrong" but they are mistaken.)
The review author's claim, based on the book author's evidence, is hardly that "parents who practice abortion would have raised a criminal." It is that abortion has reduced the ratio of criminals in society. Surely this is not unfathomable, given that a large share of abortions are performed for economic reasons.
I too found myself in complete agreement with Sowell, until his columns on Terri Schiavo. Now I know where one boundary of his rationality lies, beyond which his conclusions are suspect.
Posted by: johngalt at April 21, 2005 2:40 PMGoading us into commenting now are we? I think Steven Levitt may be able to interpret details in statistics, but he completely missed the bigger picture. Legalizing abortion has also lead to the increased size and power of the religious conservative movement. Birth rates of heathen atheists and liberal scum have dropped due to wanton abortions thus now a generation on the religious and the conservative who kept plopping out kids are taking the majority. Fear not however as this phenomenon is naturally self limiting. Soon the religious conservatives will have enough of a majority to criminalize abortion. Then atheistic and liberal birth rates will again rise until a new majority is formed and abortion will be legalized and the cycle will repeat.
Ah, Friday fun.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at April 22, 2005 9:39 AM | What do you think? [3]