Freakonomics Radio: "Abortion and Crime, Revisited (Update)" - Detailed Summary

Release Date: October 28, 2024
Host: Stephen J. Dubner
Guest Experts: Steve Levitt, John Donohue, Jessica Walpole Reyes

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Freakonomics Radio, host Stephen Dubner revisits a provocative and influential hypothesis first introduced in the Freakonomics book: the potential link between legalized abortion and the subsequent decline in crime rates in the United States. This revisit incorporates updated data and addresses past critiques, offering a comprehensive exploration of the theory's evolution and its implications in the current socio-political landscape.

The Original Hypothesis: Abortion and Crime Reduction

Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Stephen Dubner reflects on the shifting abortion laws across states and their broader societal consequences. He introduces listeners to a hypothesis initially proposed by economists Steve Levitt and John Donohue: legalized abortion may have played a significant role in reducing crime rates approximately two decades later.

Steve Levitt explains, "I was spending most of my waking hours trying to figure out this puzzle about why was it the crime, after rising for 30 years from 1960 to 1990, had suddenly reversed?" (00:03-06:28). This curiosity led Levitt and Donohue to explore unconventional factors beyond conventional explanations like policing, economy, and drug epidemics.

Challenges and Critiques of the Original Study

After publishing their 2001 paper, "Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," Levitt and Donohue faced intense scrutiny and backlash. Critics from both pro-life and pro-choice camps attacked the study, accusing it of endorsing controversial views on abortion and inadvertently touching on eugenics.

Steve Levitt recounts the personal toll: "Everybody hated it... The number of death threats that I got from the left was actually greater than the number of death threats I got from the right." (21:36-22:32).

A significant critique arose from economists Christopher Foote and Christopher Getz, who identified a coding error in the original study. Levitt admits, "We had made those mistakes... but the hypothesis, I think, comes through in flying colors." (25:12-27:20). Although the error weakened some results, subsequent corrections reinforced the original hypothesis, highlighting the robustness of their findings despite initial methodological flaws.

Revisiting the Hypothesis with Updated Data

In the updated analysis, Levitt and Donohue re-examined their original hypothesis using data extending to 2014. The new findings revealed an even stronger correlation between legalized abortion and crime reduction. Steve Levitt states, "The states that had high abortion rates over that period... have crime rates that have fallen about 60% more than the states that had lowest abortion rates." (37:23-37:48).

Jessica Walpole Reyes, an economist specializing in environmental toxicants and social behavior, contributed to the discussion by introducing the impact of lead pollution on crime rates. Her research suggested that both legalized abortion and the removal of lead from gasoline independently contributed to the decline in crime, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of societal changes.

Additional Factors: Lead Pollution and Crime

Reyes' research adds another layer to the understanding of crime reduction. John Donohue explains, "I include their abortion measure in my analysis, and I find that the abortion effect is pretty much unchanged when one includes the lead effect..." (32:10-32:17). This suggests that multiple factors, including both abortion policy and environmental changes, played significant roles in shaping crime trends.

Public and Media Reaction

The intersection of abortion and crime remains a highly contentious and emotionally charged topic. The original study's implications sparked heated debates, often overshadowing the empirical evidence with ideological stances. Steve Levitt reflects on the public's misunderstanding: "We really lost the media battle because we looked stupid, because we had made the mistake." (27:36-27:42). Despite methodological challenges, the updated study underscores the importance of nuanced, data-driven discussions over polarized narratives.

The episode also touches on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' controversial remarks linking abortion to eugenics, highlighting the persistent misinterpretations and politicization of the research.

Policy Implications and Future Directions

Levitt and Donohue discuss the broader policy implications of their findings. Steve Levitt suggests a reconsideration of aggressive policing and incarceration policies, proposing instead a focus on creating environments where children are wanted and nurtured. "If unwantedness is such a powerful influencer on people's lives, then we should try to do things to make sure that children are wanted." (43:32-44:08).

Jessica Walpole Reyes emphasizes preventative measures: "A country like the Netherlands... has much, much lower rates of abortion... because they have really tried to reduce unwanted pregnancies." (40:21-41:10). This indicates a potential shift towards policies that support family planning and parental resources as means to foster societal well-being and reduce crime.

Reflections and Personal Insights

The episode delves into the personal transformations experienced by the researchers. Steve Levitt shares how the study impacted his approach to fatherhood: "When I first was having kids, I didn't feel maybe so obligated to make children feel loved... I'm just trying to make them feel incredibly loved." (50:30-52:45). This humanizes the often abstract discussions of policy and reinforces the study's underlying message about the profound effects of societal support on individual outcomes.

Conclusion

In "Abortion and Crime, Revisited (Update)," Freakonomics Radio offers a thorough and introspective examination of a groundbreaking and controversial hypothesis. By integrating updated data, addressing past critiques, and exploring additional factors, the episode underscores the complexity of societal trends and the necessity for multifaceted, evidence-based approaches to policy-making. It challenges listeners to look beyond surface-level narratives and consider the deeper, often hidden connections that shape our communities.

Notable Quotes:

• Stephen Dubner (00:03): "The law of unintended consequences isn't really a law, but it is at least a principle that we talk about a lot on this show."

• Steve Levitt (08:14): "I had the idea that maybe legalized abortion might have reduced crime."

• Jessica Walpole Reyes (24:32): "You should be trying to figure out what is true."

• Steve Levitt (43:32): "I think there are lots of moving parts to this story... if unwantedness is such a powerful influencer on people's lives, then we should try to do things to make sure that children are wanted."

• Steve Levitt (51:11): "When I first was having kids, I didn't feel maybe so obligated to make children feel loved... I'm just trying to make them feel incredibly loved."

This episode serves as a testament to Freakonomics Radio's commitment to uncovering the hidden layers of societal issues, prompting listeners to engage with complex ideas through a lens of curiosity and rigorous analysis.