In the chapter on crime in their current best-seller, Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner discount John Lott's conclusion. They claim recent research does not support his main hypothesis.
They cite two studies which "disprove" Lott:
1. Ayres & Donohue, "Shooting Down the `More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis." Stanford Law Review, 2003.
2. Duggan, "More Guns, More Crime." Journal of Political Economy, 2001.
Do anyone know of any critique of these studies?
Thanks, Michael
Mike here is a start. http://tinyurl.com/9be6a
Google the authors names together for more, and do a Journal Google.
It is strting to look like this freak economics need to be
systematically debunked. Maybe I found my calling.
Mike, I have not read the book but just a general thought . There is
probably no winning against liberals or conservatives if you play on
thier field with thier rules when it comes to Political Economy. The
assumption they make is that issues of human action can yield to
statistical analysis. Austrians are generally skeptical of such
analysis. Benjamin Disraeli , the prime minister of the British Empire
from 1874-1880, was reported by Mark Twain to have uttered this
brilliant quote on statistical analysis: "There are three kinds of
lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." Anyone who has worked with
numbers knows they will confess to anything if one tortures them long
enough.That was from the cpi lies link a few days ago.
There is a whole Austrian critiquw on the value of empericism as it
applies to political economy and human action. I am not well versed in
it, but I think Twain and Sisreali would tend to agree.