Crime and Erosion of Trust: Evidence for Latin America

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Inter-American Development Bank, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent. Terms of use: Documents inThe unauthorized commercial use of Bank documents is prohibited and may be punishable under the Bank's policies and/or applicable laws.Copyright © 2012 Inter-American Development Bank. This working paper may be reproduced for any non-commercial purpose. It may also be reproduced in any academic journal indexed by the American Economic Association's EconLit, with previous consent by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), provided that the IDB is credited and that the author(s) receive no income from the publication. Crime has tangible economic costs. It also has less understood and likely sizable intangible costs. In particular, widespread crime has the potential to weaken trust between citizens and institutions, undermine government reform efforts, and become an obstacle to development. Yet, the impact of crime on trust remains relatively unexplored in the literature. This paper analyzes the potential interrelationship between individual victimization and several measures of trust, including trust in formal public institutions and trust in informal private networks. It is based on a representative sample of individuals in 19 countries in Latin America. The empirical strategy is intended to mitigate overt biases and assess sensitivity to hidden biases. The results show that victimization has a substantial negative effect on trust in the local police but no robust effect on informal institutions. Governments may henceforth need to redouble efforts to reduce victimization and the resulting erosion of trust in public institutions.JEL Codes: D74, D83, H41, I39, K42, O54

Commuting time, public exposure and victimization: Evidence from Brazilian metropolitan regions

“…A similar paradox was observed in Brazil: in the 2000s, Brazil's undeniable social development was not followed by a clear reduction in crime rates. Using official data, Waiselfisz () demonstrated, for example, that homicide rates increased from 25.8 in 2005 to 29.0 in 2012, and according to Corbacho, Philipp, and Vega (), public opinion polls in Latin America, including Brazil, in 2010, demonstrated that nearly 30% of respondents pointed to crime as the most critical problem in their country. Thus, as commute time increased during the 2000s, the increase in the exposure to public spaces, in streets and inside vehicles, generated by a longer daily commute, can be part of the explanation for the resilience of crime.…”

Financial shocks and the erosion of interpersonal trust: Evidence from longitudinal data

“…Corbacho et al (2015) show that being the victim of a crime can decrease interpersonal trust levels and Endreß and Pabst (2013) suggest that "[s]hattered trust is induced by interpersonal violence." 8 Finally, column (12) displays regression results from including all shock indicators jointly.…”

“…Financial shocks are observed in approximately three percent of the observations (2,153 positive and 2,311 negative shocks) and Table 1 summarizes the numbers and shares of shocks throughout the respective survey waves. The share of 2 Most such studies use a binary indicator for trust (Alesina and La Ferrara, 2002;Dearmon and Grier, 2009;Wang and Gordon, 2011;Horváth, 2013;Brandt et al, 2015;Corbacho et al, 2015). However, there are some that use a Likert scale (Nunn and Wantchekon, 2011, use four response categories, while Meier et al, 2016, use seven). positive shocks within waves ranges from 2.65 percent (in wave 14) to 3.06 percent (in wave 6), whereas 2.63 to 3.48 percent of respondents have experienced a negative financial shock.…”

The Impact of the Sense of Security from Crime on Residential Property Values in Brazilian Metropolitan Areas

“…In this way, the hedonic price model approach is linked to the growing literature on fear of crime and crime victimization that has developed with the increase of surveys at the micro level. Corbacho et al (2012) noted that the surveys using microdata "have allowed researchers to study the socioeconomic determinants of victimization, where the burden of crime on society is the main empirical concern. They have also been used to correct the significant underreporting that is suspected in aggregated official crime data."…”