The contribution of age structure to the international homicide decline

English version

Autoři: Mateus Rennó Santos ^aff001; Alexander Testa ^aff002; Lauren C. Porter ^aff003; James P. Lynch ^aff003
Působiště autorů: Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States of America ^aff001; Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America ^aff002; Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, United States of America ^aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222996

Souhrn

Background

Since 1990, the world’s homicide rate has declined by nearly 20%. While prior research has documented parallel homicide declines across many individual countries, the causes of a shared international homicide decline remain unknown. Drawing on a worldwide process of population ageing, and on research linking age to criminal activity, this study investigates the contribution of global demographic shifts to the international homicide decline.

Methods

We draw from (1) a High Coverage Sample of 126 countries since 1990, and (2) a Long Series Sample of 26 countries since 1960 and utilize fixed-effect regressions to evaluate the impact of age structure on homicide trends. In addition, we use a quantile regression to explore variations in the relationship between age structure and homicide conditional on homicide levels.

Findings

Results using the High Coverage Sample suggest no relationship between age structure and homicide. However, results from the Long Series Sample suggest that changes in the relative size of countries’ youth population is a major predictor of homicide trends since 1960. In exploring this divergence, we find that the influence of age structure on homicide becomes less evident as other risk factors for violence gain prominence. Thus, while high homicide countries had the most to gain from falling homicide rates, the safety benefits of an ageing population have been concentrated among the least violent countries.

Interpretation

While the homicide declines of individual countries have often been attributed to domestic policies, the universality of international homicide trends suggests the influence of broader global phenomenon. We find that countries’ homicide trends are strongly associated with changes in the size of their youth populations, particularly where there are few competing criminogenic forces. Based on these results, we propose an explanation for the international homicide decline, while highlighting the importance of demographic patterns in explaining homicide trends.

Klíčová slova:

Population dynamics – Age groups – United States – War and civil unrest – Global health – United Nations – Homicide – Violent crime

Zdroje

1. Allansson M, Melander E, Themnér L. Organized violence, 1989–2016. J Peace Res. 2017;54: 574–587. doi: 10.1177/0022343317718773

2. Rennó Santos M, Testa A. Global trends in homicide. In: Deflem M, editor. Homicide and Violent Crime. Bingley, England: Emerald Publishing; 2018. pp. 199–222. doi: 10.1108/S1521-613620180000023012

3. World Health Organization. Injuries and violence: The facts 2014. Geneva, Switzerland; 2014.

4. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Global study on homicide 2013. Vienna, Austria: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; 2014 Aug. doi: 10.18356/c1241a80-en

5. Mikton CR, Butchart A, Dahlberg LL, Krug EG. Global status report on violence prevention 2014. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50: 652–659. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.10.007 26689979

6. Baumer EP, Vélez MB, Rosenfeld R. Bringing crime trends back into criminology: A critical assessment of the literature and a blueprint for future inquiry. Annu Rev Criminol. 2018;1: 39–61. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092339

7. Rosenfeld R. Studying crime trends: Normal science and exogenous shocks. Criminology. 2018;56: 5–26. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12170

8. Nivette AE. Cross-national predictors of crime: A meta-analysis. Homicide Stud. 2011;15: 103–131. doi: 10.1177/1088767911406397

9. Trent CLS, Pridemore WA. A review of the cross-national empirical literature on social structure and homicide. In: Liem MCA, Pridemore WA, editors. Handbook of European Homicide Research. New York, NY: Springer; 2012. pp. 111–135. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-0466-8_7

10. Hirschi T, Gottfredson M. Age and the explanation of crime. Am J Sociol. 1983;89: 552–584. doi: 10.1086/227905

11. Steffensmeier DJ, Allan EA, Harer MD, Streifel C. Age and the distribution of crime. Am J Sociol. 1989;94: 803–831. doi: 10.1086/229069

12. Steffensmeier D, Zhong H, Lu Y. Age and its relation to crime in Taiwan and the United States: Invariant, or does cultural context matter? Criminology. 2017;55: 377–404. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12139

13. Steffensmeier D, Lu Y, Kumar S. Age–crime relation in India: Similarity or divergence vs. Hirschi/gottfredson inverted j-shaped projection? Br J Criminol. 2018;59: 144–165. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azy011

14. Cohen LE, Land KC. Age structure and crime: Symmetry versus asymmetry and the projection of crime rates through the 1990s. Am Sociol Rev. 1987;52: 170–183. doi: 10.2307/2095446

15. Phillips JA. The relationship between age structure and homicide rates in the United States, 1970 to 1999. J Res Crime Delinq. 2006;43: 230–260. doi: 10.1177/0022427806286565

16. Hindelang MJ, Gottfredson MR, Garofalo J. Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger; 1978.

17. Miethe TD, Meier RF. Crime and its social context: Toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1994.

18. Easterlin RA. Birth and fortune: The impact of numbers on personal welfare. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1987.

19. Easterlin RA. What will 1984 be like? Socioeconomic implications of recent twists in age structure. Demography. 1978;15: 397–432. doi: 10.2307/2061197 738471

20. O’Brien RM. Relative cohort size and age-specific crime rates: An age-period-relative-cohort-size model. Criminology. 1989;27: 57–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb00863.x

21. Steffensmeier D, Streifel C, Shihadeh ES. Cohort size and arrest rates over the life course: The Easterlin hypothesis reconsidered. Am Sociol Rev. 1992;57: 306–314. doi: 10.2307/2096237

22. Cook PJ, Laub JH. After the epidemic: Recent trends in youth violence in the United States. Crime and Justice. 2002;29: 1–37. doi: 10.1086/652218

23. Osgood DW, Anderson AL. Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology. 2004;42: 519–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00528.x

24. Kahn JR, Mason WM. Political alienation, cohort size, and the Easterlin hypothesis. Am Sociol Rev. 1987;52: 155–169.

25. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science (80-). 1997;277: 918–924. doi: 10.1126/science.243.4897.1441

26. Bellair PE, Browning CR. Contemporary disorganization research: An assessment and further test of the systemic model of neighborhood crime. J Res Crime Delinq. 2010;47: 496–521. doi: 10.1177/0022427810375578

27. Blumstein A. Youth violence, guns, and the illicit-drug industry. J Crim Law Criminol. 1995;86: 10–36.

28. He W, Goodkind D, Kowal P. An aging world: 2015. Washington, DC; 2016.

29. United Nations Population Division. World population ageing 2013. New York, NY; 2013.

30. Coale AJ. Demographic transition. In: Eatwell J, Milgate M, Newman P, editors. Social Economics. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan; 1989. pp. 16–23. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-19806-1_4

31. Kirk D. Demographic transition theory. Popul Stud (NY). 1996;50: 361–387. doi: 10.1080/0032472031000149536 11618374

32. Van De Kaa DJ. Europe’s second demographic transition. Popul Bull. 1987;42: 1–59.

33. Lesthaeghe R. The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Popul Dev Rev. 2010;36: 211–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00328.x 20734551

34. Winter JM, Teitelbaum MS. Population, fear, and uncertainty: The global spread of fertility decline. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2013.

35. Blumstein A, Wallman J. The crime drop and beyond. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 2006;2: 125–146. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.110011

36. Levitt SD. Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. J Econ Perspect. 2004;18: 163–190. doi: 10.1257/089533004773563485

37. Zimring FE. The great american crime decline. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195181159.001.0001

38. Mishra S, Lalumière M. Is the crime drop of the 1990s in Canada and the USA associated with a general decline in risky and health-related behavior? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68: 39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.060 18977063

39. Ouimet M. Explaining the American and Canadian crime “drop” in the 1990’s. Can J Criminol. 2002;44: 33–50. doi: 10.4000/champpenal.448

40. LaFree G, Curtis K, McDowall D. How effective are our ‘better angels’? Assessing country-level declines in homicide since 1950. Eur J Criminol. 2015;12: 482–504. doi: 10.1177/1477370815584261

41. Tseloni A, Mailley J, Farrell G, Tilley N. Exploring the international decline in crime rates. Eur J Criminol. 2010;7: 375–394. doi: 10.1177/1477370810367014

42. Tonry M. Why crime rates are falling throughout the western world. Crime and Justice. 2014;43: 1–63. doi: 10.1086/678181

43. Weiss DB, Rennó Santos M, Testa A, Kumar S. The 1990s homicide decline: A western world or international phenomenon? A research note. Homicide Stud. 2016;20: 321–334. doi: 10.1177/1088767916634406

44. Wellford CF. Age composition and the increase in recorded crime. Criminology. 1973;11: 61–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1973.tb00586.x

45. Rogers ML. A descriptive and graphical analysis of the (lack of) association between age and homicide cross-nationally. Int Crim Justice Rev. 2014;24: 235–253. doi: 10.1177/1057567714548192

46. Rogers ML, Pridemore WA. The (null) effects of percent young on 15 to 24 age-specific and male-and female-specific cross-national homicide rates. Homicide Stud. 2016;20: 257–292. doi: 10.1177/1088767915613105

47. Rogers ML, Pridemore WA. A comprehensive evaluation of the association between percent young and cross-national homicide rates. Br J Criminol. 2017;57: 1080–1100. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azw039

48. Levitt SD. The limited role of chaning age structure in explaining aggregate crime rates. Criminology. 1999;37: 581–598. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00497.x

49. Fox JA. Demographics and U.S. homicide. In: Blumstein A, Wallman J, editors. The crime Drop in America. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2005. pp. 288–318. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511616167.010

50. Friedson M, Sharkey P. Violence and neighborhood disadvantage after the crime decline. Lee BA, Firebaugh G, Iceland J, Matthews SA, editors. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2015;660: 341–358. doi: 10.1177/0002716215579825

51. Papachristos A V., Brazil N, Cheng T. Understanding the crime gap: Violence and inequality in an American city. City Community. 2018;17: 1051–1074. doi: 10.1111/cico.12348

52. Sampson RJ. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 2012.

53. Hannon L. Poverty, delinquency, and educational attainment: Cumulative disadvantage or disadvantage saturation? Sociol Inq. 2003;73: 575–594. doi: 10.1111/1475-682X.00072

54. Kahlmeter A, Bäckman O, Brännström L. Housing evictions and economic hardship. A prospective study. Eur Sociol Rev. 2018;34: 106–119. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcx087

55. Turanovic JJ. Heterogeneous effects of adolescent violent victimization on problematic outcomes in early adulthood. Criminology. 2019;57: 105–135. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12198

56. Raine A. Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults: A review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2002. pp. 311–326. doi: 10.1023/A:1015754122318 12108763

57. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Better data to monitor violence, trafficking, corruption and access to justice. Vienna, Austria; 2017.

58. Bisogno E, Dawson-Faber J, Jandl M. The International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes: A new instrument to improve comparative criminological research. Eur J Criminol. 2015;12: 535–550. doi: 10.1177/1477370815600609

59. Huebert ET, Brown DS. Due process and homicide: A cross-national analysis. Polit Res Q. 2018;72: 190–204. doi: 10.1177/1065912918785059

60. Rennó Santos M, Testa A, Weiss DB. Where poverty matters: Examining the cross-national relationship between economic deprivation and homicide. Br J Criminol. 2018;58: 372–393. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azx013

61. Weiss DB, Testa A, Rennó Santos M. Hazardous alcohol drinking and cross-national homicide rates: The role of demographic, political, and cultural context. J Drug Issues. 2018;48: 246–268. doi: 10.1177/0022042617750579

62. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1992.

63. World Health Organization. Global status report on violence prevention 2014. Geneva, Switzerland; 2014.

64. Andersson C, Kazemian L. Reliability and validity of cross-national homicide data: A comparison of UN and WHO data. Int J Comp Appl Crim Justice. 2017;42: 287–302. doi: 10.1080/01924036.2017.1370676

65. Chamlin MB, Cochran JK. Economic inequality, legitimacy, and cross-national homicide rates. Homicide Stud. 2006;10: 231–252. doi: 10.1177/1088767906292642

66. Cole JH, Gramajo AM. Homicide rates in a cross-section of countries: Evidence and interpretations. Popul Dev Rev. 2009;35: 749–776. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00307.x

67. Solt F. The standardized world income inequality database. Soc Sci Q. 2016;97: 1267–1281. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12295

68. Fox J. Regression diagnostics. Newburry Park, CA: SAGE Publications; 2009.

69. Wooldridge JM. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2002.

70. Beyerlein A. Quantile regression—Opportunities and challenges from a user’s perspective. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180: 330–331. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu178 24989240

71. Hao L, Naiman DQ. Quantile regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2007.

72. Stamatel JP. Correlates of national-level homicide variation in post-communist East-Central Europe. Soc Forces. 2009;87: 1423–1448. doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0179

73. Chervyakov V V, Shkolnikov VM, Pridemore WA, McKee M. The changing nature of murder in Russia. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55: 1713–1724. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00299-4 12383457

74. Briceño-León R, Villaveces A, Concha-Eastman A. Understanding the uneven distribution of the incidence of homicide in Latin America. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37: 751–757. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyn153 18653511

75. Canudas-Romo V, Aburto JM. Youth lost to homicides: Disparities in survival in Latin america and the Caribbean. BMJ Glob Heal. 2019;4. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001275 31139444

76. Durkheim E. The division of labor in society. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company; 1933.

77. LaFree G, Drass KA. Counting crime booms among nations: Evidence for homicide victimization rates, 1956 to 1998. Criminology. 2002;40: 769–800. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00973.x

78. Pridemore WA, Chamlin MB, Cochran JK. An interrupted time‐series analysis of Durkheim’s social deregulation thesis: The case of the Russian Federation. Justice Q. 2007;24: 271–290. doi: 10.1080/07418820701294813 20165565

79. Fox J. Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1997.

80. Li G. Robust regression. In: Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Tukey JW, editors. Exploring data tables, trends, and shapes. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 1985. pp. 281–344.

81. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41: 1149–1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 19897823

82. Kinsella K, Phillips DR. Global aging: The challenge of success. Population Bulletin. Washington, DC; 2005.

83. Miron JA. Violence, guns, and drugs: A cross-country analysis. J Law Econ. 2001;44: 615–633. doi: 10.1086/340507

84. Rivera M. The sources of social violence in Latin America: An empirical analysis of homicide rates, 1980–2010. J Peace Res. 2016;53: 84–99. doi: 10.1177/0022343315598823

85. Nivette AE. Institutional ineffectiveness, illegitimacy, and public support for vigilantism in Latin America. Criminology. 2016;54: 142–175. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12099

86. Bergman M, Whitehead L. Criminality, public security, and the challenge to democracy in Latin America. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press; 2009.

87. Imbusch P, Misse M, Carrión F. Violence research in Latin America and the Caribbean: A literature review. Int J Confl Violence. 2011;5: 87–154. doi: 10.4119/UNIBI/IJCV.141

88. Bratton WJ, Kelling GL. Why we need broken windows policing. City Journal. 2015: 1–14.

89. Olds DL. The nurse–family partnership: An evidence-based preventive intervention. Infant Ment Health J. 2006;27: 5–25. doi: 10.1002/imhj.20077 28640426

90. Asscher JJ, Deković M, Manders WA, van der Laan PH, Prins PJM, Group4 DMC-ES. A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of multisystemic therapy in the Netherlands: Post-treatment changes and moderator effects. J Exp Criminol. 2013;9: 169–187. doi: 10.1007/s11292-012-9165-9

91. Biglan A, Brennan PA, Foster SL, Holder HD. Helping adolescents at risk: Prevention of multiple problem behaviors. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2004.

92. Sherman LW, Gottfredson DC, Mackenzie DL, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway SD. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC; 1998.

93. Cohen MA. The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. J Quant Criminol. 1998;14: 5–33. doi: 10.1023/A:1023092324459

94. Lipsey MW. The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Vict Offender. 2009;4: 124–147. doi: 10.1080/15564880802612573