Measuring Positive Externalities from Unobservable Victim Precaution: An Empirical Analysis of Lojack

Private expenditures on crime reduction have potentially important externalities. Observable measures such as barbed-wire fences and deadbolt locks may shift crime to those who are unprotected, imposing a negative externality. Unobservable precautions, on the other hand, may provide positive externalities since criminals cannot determine a priori who is protected. Focusing on one specific form of victim precaution, Lojack, we provide the first thorough empirical analysis of the magnitude of such externalities. Because installing Lojack does not reduce the likelihood that an individual car will be stolen, any decrease in the aggregate crime rates due to Lojack is an externality from the perspective of the individual Lojack purchaser. We find that the presence of Lojack is associated with a sharp fall in auto theft in central cities and a more modest decline in the remainder of the state. Rates of other crimes do not change appreciably. Our estimates suggest that, at least historically, the marginal social benefit of an additional unit of Lojack has been as much as 15 times greater than the marginal social cost in high crime areas. Those who install Lojack in their cars, however, obtain less than ten percent of the total social benefits of Lojack, causing Lojack to be undersupplied by the free market. Current insurance subsidies for the installation of Lojack appear to be well below the socially optimal level.

[1]  Dan A. Black,et al.  Do Right‐To‐Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime? , 1998, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[2]  David B. Mustard,et al.  Crime, Deterrence, and Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Handguns , 1997, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[3]  Thomas B. Marvell,et al.  SPECIFICATION PROBLEMS, POLICE LEVELS, AND CRIME RATES* , 1996 .

[4]  R. Posner,et al.  The Economic Epidemiology of Crime , 1996, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[5]  Richard B. Freeman,et al.  Why Do so Many Young American Men Commit Crimes and What Might We Do About it? , 1996 .

[6]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Why Do Increased Arrest Rates Appear to Reduce Crime: Deterrence, Incapacitation, or Measurement Error? , 1995 .

[7]  Alon Harel Efficiency and Fairness in Criminal Law: The case for a Criminal Law Principle of Comparative Fault , 1994 .

[8]  Ivan P. L. Png,et al.  Private security: Deterrent or diversion? , 1994 .

[9]  David N. Laband,et al.  An Estimate of Resource Expenditures on Transfer Activity in the United States , 1992 .

[10]  D. de Meza,et al.  The Social Efficiency of Private Decisions to Enforce Property Rights , 1992, Journal of Political Economy.

[11]  Steven Shavell,et al.  Individual Precautions to Prevent Theft: Private Versus Socially Optimalbehavior , 1990 .

[12]  S. Cameron The Economics of Crime Deterrence: A Survey of Theory and Evidence , 1988 .

[13]  R. Clarke,et al.  UNDERSTANDING CRIME DISPLACEMENT: AN APPLICATION OF RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY , 1987 .

[14]  Ted Chiricos,et al.  Rates of Crime and Unemployment: An Analysis of Aggregate Research Evidence , 1987 .

[15]  Philip J. Cook,et al.  The Demand and Supply of Criminal Opportunities , 1986, Crime and Justice.

[16]  David D. Friedman,et al.  Efficient Institutions for the Private Enforcement of Law , 1984, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[17]  Charles T. Clotfelter,et al.  Private security and the public safety , 1978 .

[18]  David Lester,et al.  Crime as Opportunity: A Test of the Hypothesis with European Homicide Rates , 1991 .

[19]  A. Piehl,et al.  Does Prison Pay? The Stormy National Debate over the Cost-Effectiveness of Imprisonment , 1991 .

[20]  Mark A. Cohen,et al.  Pain, Suffering, and Jury Awards: A Study of the Cost of Crime to Victims , 1988 .