Empirical support for the “broken window” economic theory: a comment on structural theorizing
Megan McArdle notes that the recent Economist has provided some empirical support for the “broken window” theory of economics (and crime). They report on an experiment:
The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of disorder. In this case an envelope with a EUR5 ($6) note inside (and the note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper, orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the envelope.
The original 1982 theory comes from The Atlantic.
I think there is something to this. Social order is derived largely from socialization. We are socialized into a given context by our environment, our interactions with others, the structure we operate under, etc. In this instance an environment of graffiti can imply a structure that suggests stealing is ok, whereas an environment of guns and video cameras watching everything suggests that stealing is certainly not ok.
Apply this thinking to the recent WalMart stampede death, for instance. Is it the individuals who ran over the security that are to blame? Or it is the structure that suggested to them that such stampeding is ok?
December 2nd, 2008 12:11
ha! It is the stampeding vultures that are to blame and should be prosecuted. Once they are put in jail, then we can start to figure out why they behaved this way. The hope is to determine the reason for such behavior, not offer excuses to escape punishment.
p.s. didn’t you rail against this theory in terms of violent video games affecting children in a negative way?
December 2nd, 2008 12:14
So what blame does Wal-Mart have, in your view? They create the structure under which the mess happens but aren’t responsible for doing so?
I don’t follow your argument about how this is related to the video games. You claimed that video games make kids more violent. I pointed out how that was wrong, backed up by data.
December 2nd, 2008 12:22
Right…but it’s the same argument as socialization…the idea of violence being okay, because that’s the context in which you are surrounded.
Wal-Mart’s blame would come through some research. You have to determine how foreseeable such an incident was, that discounted prices would create such a stampede so as to trample and kill a man….i’m not so sure we should require a store to presume adults are such animals.
December 2nd, 2008 12:27
Whoever said that violence was ok because that’s the context in which you’re surrounded? I’m saying that human agency is a function of two factors: the individual and the structure. Take the current economic crisis. You don’t have people taking out mortgages they can’t afford if there aren’t financial firms creating a structure that 1) allows it and 2) tells the individual that they really can afford that loan.
Same thing here. You don’t get the stampede if Wal-Mart doesn’t set up the system in such a way to encourage the stampede.
And this business about doing research is a joke. This is not the first time Wal-Mart has had a stampeding problem. They knew damn well that this was a possibility: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/business/29walmart.html
Once again, corporate greed has cost lives unnecessarily.
December 2nd, 2008 12:30
And once again, liberal America is trying to excuse the criminal, shame on you.
December 2nd, 2008 12:32
LOL, it’s not about excusing the criminal, it’s about having WalMart take some blame.
And once again, conservative America is trying to blame the little guy, shame on you.
December 2nd, 2008 12:41
Of course it is about excusing the criminal…for some reason, liberals don’t think that humans are capable of exercising free will…that something forces them to pull the trigger of the gun (so blame the gun), something forces them to trample an innocent man (so blame the store). It’s pathethic. The store should be investigated…but not before each and everyone of these vultures is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
December 2nd, 2008 12:44
Why do conservatives have such a problem with multiple causation? Why need it always be black and white for you folks. Is it because of a diminished mental capacity that comes with being Republican?
Thought experiment: Is it not possible to have the following two situations obtain:
Cause A –> Outcome X
and
Cause A + Cause B –> Outcome X
December 2nd, 2008 12:50
Who ever said it was one other the other? I’ve said from the beginning, first you go to the person who physically caused the crime, then you investigate why it happened. If further prosecution is needed from there, so be it. But you don’t excuse the actions right away, like you are doing…Liberals try to make excuses for criminals…that is what they do, you are no different. There are definitely multiple causes here, but one should not preclude the other from criminal prosecution, at least certainly not in this case.
December 2nd, 2008 12:51
I don’t see how pointing out that there was a structure in place that created a permissive condition for the crime to occur is excusing the criminal. Where have I said the individual receives no blame?
December 2nd, 2008 13:05
Your initial question was who is to blame? The implication is one or the other…would you like to amend the initial post?
December 2nd, 2008 13:07
The question was:
“Apply this thinking to the recent WalMart stampede death, for instance. Is it the individuals who ran over the security that are to blame? Or it is the structure that suggested to them that such stampeding is ok?”
This does not imply you have to choose one or the other. You could have said: “Both.”
December 2nd, 2008 14:38
And I did say both…you are choosing one over the other.
December 2nd, 2008 14:40
Could have fooled me. Your first two sentence are:
“ha! It is the stampeding vultures that are to blame and should be prosecuted.”
Call me crazy, but the “ha!” seems to suggest that this isn’t even up for discussion, that obviously the “vultures are to blame.”
You even followed it up by saying vultures first THEN maybe, if we have time, look at Wal-Mart’s culpability in all of this.
December 2nd, 2008 14:48
[...] blogger Yankees Fan claims these people are vultures. I don’t disagree. But Wal-Mart created an environment for them to be [...]
December 2nd, 2008 14:56
That’s right…the murderer gets put away first, then you look to see where there might be an accomplice.
December 2nd, 2008 17:52
FWIW, my argument is not that “stampeding is okay.” It is that stampeding is something we can predict under certain conditions: urgency, inadequate crowd control, scarcity, and bottlenecks.
And as a matter of fact, yes, people *are* injured every year in Black Friday sales (and similar situations). So it *is* predictable that injuries will occur. This is the first death, but how much of a surprise is it that a situation that *regularly* causes injuries is at some point going to kill someone?
December 2nd, 2008 19:05
I agree with bitchphd 100%. I did not mean to attribute “stampeding is okay” to you per se, but rather to attribute the “other side of the argument” to you. And it is an argument I agree with. The structural conditions here caused the behavior we saw on Friday as far as I am concerned.
December 2nd, 2008 19:19
bitchphd (nice name) says it a bit better than you, scholar, and again i still take issue with your sentiment…the structural conditions did not CAUSE the behavior…they may have facilitated the behavior, but people are free to behave as they choose and cannot blame their stupidity on a “structural condition.”
December 2nd, 2008 22:10
people are free to behave as they choose
In a crowd, they really aren’t. At least, not entirely. You can’t, for instance, refuse to move forward if you’re surrounded by a crowd of people pressing you forward.
December 2nd, 2008 22:35
Yankees, I need to introduce you to some social theorists, but we don’t have time for that here. bitchphd is right. The structural constraints in these crowds suggest a “push or be pushed” dilemma.
December 2nd, 2008 23:08
Your arrogance, scholar, isn’t very becoming. Bitchphd needed two posts to convey what you’ve been incapable of doing over 10+. Nevertheless, when you blame institutional conditions in lieu of human behavior, you have serious problems. As I’ve said all along, if further investigation shows that Wal-Mart did not follow standard operating procedure in putting ample amount of staff on duty to regulate the crowd, they should be liable for a number of civil law suits; however, the criminal behavior comes from the person/people who showed disregard for all human life and trampled a man to death.
December 2nd, 2008 23:09
Wait a second, why would Wal-Mart be liable for anything civilly? So far you haven’t admitted any guilt at all on Wal-Mart’s part. What did they do wrong?
December 2nd, 2008 23:20
What are you talking about? Go back and re-read all of these posts…They would be liable for injuries, death, etc. if it is customary for the store to have more staff on hand, police officers, etc. and they were being cheap. If the courts demonstrate that they had a duty (which likely they would) to these people, they certainly could be held in breach to those who were injured on their premises. With that said, that in no way offers an excuse for the savage behavior these people demonstrated last week….where Wal-Mart breached its duty was to the injured customers/workers who didn’t have enough protection on the job…but I don’t see them criminally responsible for the murder…that’s on the hands of the shoppers.
December 2nd, 2008 23:24
No one is talking about “excuses” or ways to take away responsibility from the individuals. That has been your reading of my argument this entire time and it is wrong. What I am suggesting is that Wal-Mart has culpability here too. I’m also suggesting that often times the structures one operates under has an effect on the choices they make. You can have all the free will in the world but it doesn’t help you if you are constrained by structure. bitchphd makes that point quite well.
December 2nd, 2008 23:28
Well, I think this argument has run its course. We appear to agree then that the shoppers who trampled this man were murderers with no excuses. We also agree that Wal-Mart needs to be looked at as a potential contributor to this tragedy. Where we may disagree is to whom we assign more blame…your implication throughout has been that you feel the majority of blame should go to the institution and less to the person, whereas I feel the opposite.
December 2nd, 2008 23:30
What troubles me more is your privileging of individual action over structure. I think in most aspects of our life structure plays a large bigger role than individual action.
December 2nd, 2008 23:34
The opposite troubles me regarding your argument…good night
December 2nd, 2008 23:34
Even though you’ll lock your doors tonight, you don’t have to. Take comfort and security in knowing that I’m right.
December 6th, 2008 13:32
[...] is to blame it all on the corporation nominally responsible, and the conservative impluse is to blame the individuals, when in reality all sides in such tragedies share [...]