Search Results

Author: Williams, Geoffrey
Resulting in 4 citations.
1. Williams, Geoffrey
A Simple Threshold Model of Theft
Working Paper, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), November 14, 2011.
Also: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1978855
Cohort(s): NLSY97
Publisher: Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc.
Keyword(s): Adolescent Behavior; Crime; Delinquency/Gang Activity; Heterogeneity; Modeling

Permission to reprint the abstract has not been received from the publisher.

I propose a simple threshold strategy model of theft in which all individuals draw theft opportunities from the same random distribution, while individuals di ffer in terms of their actual or perceived costs of theft. I estimate the model using data from the NLSY 1997 Cohort for the years 1997-2003 with a number of specifi cations, including a bivariate structural model. Across all estimations covariates that measure or are closely correlated with time preferences and impatience are strong predictors of theft while measures such as opportunity cost show little or no explanatory power. The assumption of a common distribution of opportunities is not contradicted by the data. Structural and count estimations support the conclusion that unobserved heterogeneity across individuals plays a substantial role. I uncover a previously unnoticed pattern: theft is very spiky in that the median thief is active for only a brief period of less than a year in adolescence or early adulthood. Theft thus appears to be substantially a phenomenon of high impatience individuals entering a temporary period of intensi fied risk-taking in adolescence. Finally, and in contrast to the predictions of the literature, the two count data models favored in cases of unobserved heterogeneity perform very differently, suggesting that using count models in tandem with binary models o ffers more insight than using count models in isolation.
Bibliography Citation
Williams, Geoffrey. "A Simple Threshold Model of Theft." Working Paper, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), November 14, 2011.
2. Williams, Geoffrey
Differently Rational Essays on Criminal Behavior
Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick, 2012
Cohort(s): NLSY97
Publisher: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT)
Keyword(s): Adolescent Behavior; Cost-Benefit Studies; Crime; Modeling

Permission to reprint the abstract has not been received from the publisher.

The second chapter proposes a simple threshold model of theft, and develops a number of structural estimators based on this model. It then tests the model against data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 1997 Cohort. The evidence suggests that the key determinant of theft behavior is the costs of theft to the thief, and in particular the thief's perception of future costs. There does not seem to be significant variation in the benefits of theft; that is, there is no sign that some individuals are more capable of theft than others. The data also shows that theft behavior is usually very short-lived, with the vast majority of thieves showing activity for less than one year in adolescence.
Bibliography Citation
Williams, Geoffrey. Differently Rational Essays on Criminal Behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick, 2012.
3. Williams, Geoffrey
Property Crime: Investigating Career Patterns and Earnings
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 119 (November 2015): 124-138.
Also: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726811500205X
Cohort(s): NLSY97
Publisher: Elsevier
Keyword(s): Career Patterns; Crime; Earnings; Smoking (see Cigarette Use)

I investigate self-reported theft data in the NLSY 1997 Cohort for the years 1997-2011. Several striking patterns emerge. First, individuals appear to be active thieves for extremely short periods - in most cases in only one year, and fewer than 5% of thieves for more than three years out of the 15 years of data. Second, self-reported earnings from theft are generally very low and there is little evidence of "successful" criminals or consistent earnings from theft. Third, measures that proxy impatience (smoking, for example) are highly correlated with theft. Fourthly, thieves and non-thieves have similar earnings during the years of peak theft activity, but thieves have lower earnings in their late 20s (after most have long since stopped committing theft). Attrition of survey respondents, underreporting and incapacitation effects do not appear to explain this. There may be "professional thieves" too rare to show up in even large samples such as the NLSY. Theft in the United States thus appears to be substantially a phenomenon of individuals entering a temporary period of intensified risk-taking in adolescence.
Bibliography Citation
Williams, Geoffrey. "Property Crime: Investigating Career Patterns and Earnings." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 119 (November 2015): 124-138.
4. Williams, Geoffrey
The Thief's Wages: Theft and Human Capital Development
Oxford Economic Papers 70,2 (1 April 2018): 443-467.
Also: https://academic.oup.com/oep/article/70/2/443/4372431
Cohort(s): NLSY97
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Keyword(s): Aptitude; Armed Forces Qualifications Test (AFQT); Crime; Health, Mental/Psychological; Human Capital

Permission to reprint the abstract has not been received from the publisher.

In this paper, a model is developed to investigate whether theft can be economically rational. It is shown that heterogeneity in capital accumulation rates (or 'learning ability') cannot create any noticeable difference in incentives to steal. Further heterogeneity in instantaneous opportunity cost is both too low and runs in the wrong direction to have any explanatory role. However, heterogeneity in discount rates in combination with differences in initial human capital can create an incentive for theft. The model is calibrated from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1997 with data from 1997 to 2011.
Bibliography Citation
Williams, Geoffrey. "The Thief's Wages: Theft and Human Capital Development ." Oxford Economic Papers 70,2 (1 April 2018): 443-467.