Behind Blue Eyes

As any Douglas Adams fan will know, Dirk Gently solved mysteries by considering the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. It worked wonders for him and had the added bonus of allowing him to charge his clients for trips to the Bahamas. Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that sometimes different human activities act in similar ways to other totally unconnected ones. I have just finished reading The Book recommended by Mr Drew of C@W fame which explains why business and innovation is like Darwinian evolution (with the added bonus that humans are sometimes able to learn from their mistakes to push things forward a bit more quickly). Most businesses fail in the end, but innovation and productivity will thrive when people and business are allowed to try new ways of doing things. Conversely, the economy will stagnate if industries are centralised or “winners” are picked by the government.

I was wondering whether crime and inflation behave similarly. There are two elements to inflation: the availability of credit and people’s expectations for future levels of inflation. The monetarists told us that we could keep a lid inflation by varying the price of credit so as to control supply and therefore inflation. We also know that people will use their expectation of future inflation to negotiate their wage deals, so a spike in inflation can quickly becoming self-reinforcing. I wonder whether crime isn’t quite similar.

Broken window theory teaches us that people’s expectation of crime is a major component of whether crime will be committed. In run down areas, people feel less safe and criminals feel bolder. Mayor Giuliani fought crime and urban decay and reduced levels of crime and the fear of crime. Safety became self-reinforcing and a virtuous circle was created. People of the “right” also tend to believe that crime is affected by its “price” i.e. that punishment is a deterrent both against future offending and pour encourager les autres.

It’s fair to say that since the 1960s, the “price” of crime has fallen dramatically. Successive governments have increased the numbers of police officers to try and reduce the expectation of crime, but people still don’t feel safe. Many people argue that because there are lots of people in prison, that prison doesn’t work. I reckon it’s the other way around: there are lots of people in prison because there is lots of crime and to reduce the number of people in prison we first need to start locking up a higher proportion of offenders. Treat the cause, and the effect will look after itself.

PS I see that I have been tagged by The Great Nick Drew! I think this is my first Blue Eyes tag so I shall try and get this right (by the way, Mr ND, there are no tall tales here…). The challenge is to pick three blogs, one of each of a) that mirrors your own personal philosophy, b) that mirrors your politics and c) that offers the most consistently attractive analysis. Sorry, but I’m changing the game slightly and just choosing my three favourite blogs:

1. Mr Raedwald seems to have a jump lead into my brain. Whenever I think of something that works me into a lather I click on his site and he’s already posted about it (and he can write beautifully, too).

2. Crushed By Ingsoc, because although I often get annoyed about what he says, I can see the validity of his argument. His recent posts have made me stop to think really hard and that is what blogs are all about.

3. Samizdata because it is always a fascinating read and regularly takes apart the reasoning of the numpties who dare to be our “elite”.

Runner up: Devil’s Kitchen because although he went through a phase of quenching my thirst he occasionally gets it wrong. DK, you are hereby tagged! Also tagged are: Letters From A Tory and Richard.