Crime is Enemy, Not Gangs

In the last couple of months, I have been particularly alerted to the fact that most private and even public policy is based on very limited evidence and big assumptions. One need not be a very keen reader of the more popular books by professional economists to understand that a large portion of conventional wisdom is flat out wrong when examined empirically. One such area is that of crime reduction and suppression where a lot of untested but popular assumptions that seem sensible are often used to anchor policy.

Writing for  Econlib Russel Sobel summarizes the idea that the whereas law enforcers readily pursue destruction of gangs, the empirical evidence suggests that that approach is wrong-headed. Arguing cogently, the rise of gangs may be associated with higher crimes but the direction of causality is that insecurity causes the upsurge in gang formation. Having reviewed some time series data, he alludes to a paper showing that gang activity is rational response by youth who face a risk of violent crime. As a result, the single-minded quest to eliminate gangs is ineffective policy because gangs arise out of failure of the state to provide protection that is required. Unintended consequences of a successful suppression of gangs may be a rise in crime because of the eroded protection that gangs provide to individual members.  In summary, the paper leads to the conclusion that law enforcers should destroy crimes, not gangs.