Homicide Rates and the Multiple Dimensions of Urbanization: A Longitudinal, Cross-National Analysis

Abstract

Sustainability scholars frame urbanization as a multidimensional concept with divergent environmental impacts. Through synthesizing recent quantitative studies of urbanization in criminology, we evaluated this multidimensional framework in a longitudinal, cross-national analysis of homicide rates for 217 countries between 2000 and 2015. For the analysis, we also highlighted the issue of missing data, a common concern for cross-national scholars in a variety of disciplines. While controlling for other relevant factors, we compared results from panel models that use the common technique of listwise deletion (n = 113) and from structural equation models (SEM) that handle missing values with full information maximum likelihood (n = 216). While the estimates for the control variables are non-significant in the SEM approach, the findings for the urbanization variables were robust and multidimensional. In particular, while the proportion of the population that is urban is positively related to homicide, the proportion of the population living in large cities of at least one million inhabitants is significantly and negatively related to homicide in all models. Given our focus on urbanization, we outline our contribution not only in the context of criminology but also the cross-national sustainability literature, which often uses similar variables with missing values.

The persistent countervailing consequences of urbanization: A longitudinal study of homicide rates

“…Empirically, Levchak (2016) focused on the percent of the population living in urban areas as a primary urbanization variable. However, when considering studies done at multiple levels of analysis, local level to cross-national, the literature as a whole suggests it is best to treat urbanization as a multidimensional concept in order to capture not only the overall urban proportion in a country but also the typical size of its urban centers (Chang et al, 2019; Clement et al, 2019; Levchak, 2016; Sahasranaman and Bettencourt, 2019). In cross-national studies, the commonly used basic measure of urbanization (percent of the population living in urban areas) establishes a lower threshold for identifying rural versus urban areas, failing to distinguish larger cities from smaller-sized areas (United Nations, 2005).…”

“…In cross-national studies, the commonly used basic measure of urbanization (percent of the population living in urban areas) establishes a lower threshold for identifying rural versus urban areas, failing to distinguish larger cities from smaller-sized areas (United Nations, 2005). For example, in 2008, based according to World Bank data, Greenland was 83% urban, and Uruguay, with a little over three million inhabitants, was about 94% urban (see Clement et al, 2019). In contrast, the United States had a population nearly 100 times larger than Uruguay and was only 81% urban.…”

“…In this vast literature, there have been several studies examining urbanization, either as a control variable or as a variable of primary theoretical interest (e.g. Clement, Pino and Blaustein, 2019; Koeppel et al, 2015; Levchak, 2016; Nivette, 2011; Rotolo and Tittle, 2006; Trent and Pridemore, 2012). Although formative theoretical frameworks offered a uniform perspective on the criminogenic consequences of urbanization (for a review, see Levchak, 2016), more recent quantitative scholarship, at both the local-level and cross-nationally, taken as a whole, presents urbanization as a multidimensional process with independent, countervailing consequences, in particular for the homicide rate (Chang, Kim and Jeon, 2019; Clement et al, 2019; Levchak, 2016; Sahasranaman and Bettencourt, 2019).…”

“…Clement, Pino and Blaustein, 2019; Koeppel et al, 2015; Levchak, 2016; Nivette, 2011; Rotolo and Tittle, 2006; Trent and Pridemore, 2012). Although formative theoretical frameworks offered a uniform perspective on the criminogenic consequences of urbanization (for a review, see Levchak, 2016), more recent quantitative scholarship, at both the local-level and cross-nationally, taken as a whole, presents urbanization as a multidimensional process with independent, countervailing consequences, in particular for the homicide rate (Chang, Kim and Jeon, 2019; Clement et al, 2019; Levchak, 2016; Sahasranaman and Bettencourt, 2019). Following this line of inquiry, in a cross-national time-series study, we delve into the multiple dimensions of urbanization and their consequences on homicide rates.…”

Is Urbanization Good for the Climate? A Cross-County Analysis of Impervious Surface, Affluence, and the Carbon Intensity of Well-Being

“…For example, cross-nationally, urbanization has been found to marginally improve life expectancy at birth (Brady, Yunus, and Beckfield 2007; Kim and Kim 2016). Other cross-national research, however, has demonstrated that homicide rates, an aspect of social life that might adversely affect well-being, are positively associated with urban growth (Clement, Pino, and Blaustein 2019).…”