There is evidence to support the belief that if people have better access to jobs and income, they are less likely to commit crime. However, there is a caveat. More than 80% of all crimes fall in property crimes, but not in violent crimes. Jens Ludwig and Kevin Schnepel describe the following pattern: “Is there nothing that can stop a bullet like a job? How Income Affects Crime” (Working Paper 2024-42, Becker-Friedman Institute, University of Chicago, April 2024, submitted to a forthcoming publication) Annual Review of Criminology). They wrote in their abstract:
The best available evidence suggests that policies that reduce economic despair reduce property crime (and therefore overall crime rates) but have little systematic relationship with violent crime. The difference in impact is due in large part to the fact that most violent crimes, including murder, are not crimes for profit but rather crimes of passion, including anger. Policies that alleviate material hardship, which are important and useful for improving people’s lives and well-being, are not enough to substantially alleviate the burden that crime places on society.
This study is a review of existing evidence, not a new set of evidence. The authors focus on randomized studies that provide jobs or income, or studies that examine “macro” changes in jobs and income across geographic areas or business cycles. This table summarizes the results. The center dot shows the central estimate for that study, and the bars show the range of statistical uncertainty around that central estimate. The evidence across studies is, not surprisingly, mixed. However, while there is a lot of research on the impact of property crime, there is not much research on the impact of violent crime.
As the authors point out, programs that improve access to jobs or income can be valuable not only because of the direct benefits they provide to people, but also because of their effect on reducing property crime. They’re not arguing that such programs aren’t valuable, they’re just arguing that they don’t have much of an impact on violent crime.
This result may feel counterintuitive. After all, don’t we all “know” that violent crime is more likely to occur in low-income neighborhoods? The authors point out that what we ‘know’ is only partially accurate. Yes, some low-income neighborhoods have high levels of violent crime while others do not. Why some areas are violent and others are not is a question that goes beyond jobs and income. The author writes (references to figures omitted):
Notice what these results can and cannot tell us. Much larger and more dramatic changes in income may have other effects. This study sample can’t tell you about that. However, we would like to note as an aside that the arrest rate of NFL players (with an oft-cited average salary of $2.7 million) is lower for property crimes than for the general population, but not for violent crimes (Leal et al. 2015 ). . Taken together, the best available data and evidence suggest that economic conditions have a significant impact on property crime but are not the primary driver of the crime problem itself, i.e., violent crime. What matters for violence is that it appears to be correlated with income poverty, but it is not the same as income poverty.
To see this, take a look at the patterns in Chicago’s neighborhoods. All wealthy neighborhoods are safe. And the neighborhoods with the most gun violence are all poor. But rates of gun violence vary greatly across low-income neighborhoods. Similar patterns emerge across countries. Almost all rich countries (except the United States) are fairly safe in terms of murder rates, while the least safe countries, including Mexico, Brazil, and Nigeria, are all very poor. But it is not true that all poor countries are at risk. When it comes to violence, poverty is not destiny. Something different is clearly happening.
If anything, the evidence for the opposite relationship seems at least as strong. Uncontrolled violence worsens poverty and unemployment. Exposure to community violence harms children’s schooling outcomes and the mental health of both parents and children (Sharkey, 2018). … Local economic development is hampered when people and businesses flee to safer places. On the other hand, anything that helps control the violent crime problem can be a tremendous tailwind for community development efforts.
In other words, the flow of causality is not that violent crimes occur due to a lack of jobs and income in a specific area, but rather that violent crimes in a specific area contribute to the lack of jobs and income in that area. Solving violent crime appears to require non-economic tools.
