Fascinating. This, BTW, is another example of the fallacy of the “market forces will solve all problems” ideology (aka Libertarianism). That idea is that, given the terrible effects lead has when it’s freely released into the environment, market forces will naturally cause lead-based products to be replaced by lead-free substitutes—no government action needed. Those who believe that will believe just about anything.
UPDATE: More on what lead abatement can do.
… Although crime did fall dramatically in New York during Giuliani’s tenure, a broad range of scientific research has emerged in recent years to show that the mayor deserves only a fraction of the credit that he claims. The most compelling information has come from an economist in Fairfax who has argued in a series of little-noticed papers that the “New York miracle” was caused by local and federal efforts decades earlier to reduce lead poisoning.
The theory offered by the economist, Rick Nevin, is that lead poisoning accounts for much of the variation in violent crime in the United States. It offers a unifying new neurochemical theory for fluctuations in the crime rate, and it is based on studies linking children’s exposure to lead with violent behavior later in their lives.
What makes Nevin’s work persuasive is that he has shown an identical, decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine countries.
“It is stunning how strong the association is,” Nevin said in an interview. “Sixty-five to ninety percent or more of the substantial variation in violent crime in all these countries was explained by lead.”
Through much of the 20th century, lead in U.S. paint and gasoline fumes poisoned toddlers as they put contaminated hands in their mouths. The consequences on crime, Nevin found, occurred when poisoning victims became adolescents. Nevin does not say that lead is the only factor behind crime, but he says it is the biggest factor.
Giuliani’s presidential campaign declined to address Nevin’s contention that the mayor merely was at the right place at the right time. But William Bratton, who served as Giuliani’s police commissioner and who initiated many of the policing techniques credited with reducing the crime rate, dismissed Nevin’s theory as absurd. Bratton and Giuliani instituted harsh measures against quality-of-life offenses, based on the “broken windows” theory of addressing minor offenses to head off more serious crimes.
Many other theories have emerged to try to explain the crime decline. In the 2005 book Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner said the legalization of abortion in 1973 had eliminated “unwanted babies” who would have become violent criminals. Other experts credited lengthy prison terms for violent offenders, or demographic changes, socioeconomic factors, and the fall of drug epidemics. New theories have emerged as crime rates have inched up in recent years.
Most of the theories have been long on intuition and short on evidence. Nevin says his data not only explain the decline in crime in the 1990s, but the rise in crime in the 1980s and other fluctuations going back a century. His data from multiple countries, which have different abortion rates, police strategies, demographics and economic conditions, indicate that lead is the only explanation that can account for international trends.
Because the countries phased out lead at different points, they provide a rigorous test: In each instance, the violent crime rate tracks lead poisoning levels two decades earlier.
“It is startling how much mileage has been given to the theory that abortion in the early 1970s was responsible for the decline in crime” in the 1990s, Nevin said. “But they legalized abortion in Britain, and the violent crime in Britain soared in the 1990s. The difference is our gasoline lead levels peaked in the early ’70s and started falling in the late ’70s, and fell very sharply through the early 1980s and was virtually eliminated by 1986 or ’87.
“In Britain and most of Europe, they did not have meaningful constraints [on leaded gasoline] until the mid-1980s and even early 1990s,” he said. “This is the reason you are seeing the crime rate soar in Mexico and Latin America, but [it] has fallen in the United States.”
Lead levels plummeted in New York in the early 1970s, driven by federal policies to eliminate lead from gasoline and local policies to reduce lead emissions from municipal incinerators. Between 1970 and 1974, the number of New York children heavily poisoned by lead fell by more than 80 percent, according to data from the New York City Department of Health.
Lead levels in New York have continued to fall. One analysis in the late 1990s found that children in New York had lower lead exposure than children in many other big U.S. cities, possibly because of a 1960 policy to replace old windows. That policy, meant to reduce deaths from falls, had an unforeseen benefit — old windows are a source of lead poisoning, said Dave Jacobs of the National Center for Healthy Housing, an advocacy group that is publicizing Nevin’s work. Nevin’s research was not funded by the group.
The later drop in violent crime was dramatic. In 1990, 31 New Yorkers out of every 100,000 were murdered. In 2004, the rate was 7 per 100,000 — lower than in most big cities. The lead theory also may explain why crime fell broadly across the United States in the 1990s, not just in New York.
The centerpiece of Nevin’s research is an analysis of crime rates and lead poisoning levels across a century. The United States has had two spikes of lead poisoning: one at the turn of the 20th century, linked to lead in household paint, and one after World War II, when the use of leaded gasoline increased sharply. Both times, the violent crime rate went up and down in concert, with the violent crime peaks coming two decades after the lead poisoning peaks.
Other evidence has accumulated in recent years that lead is a neurotoxin that causes impulsivity and aggression, but these studies have also drawn little attention. In 2001, sociologist Paul B. Stretesky and criminologist Michael Lynch showed that U.S. counties with high lead levels had four times the murder rate of counties with low lead levels, after controlling for multiple environmental and socioeconomic factors.
In 2002, Herbert Needleman, a psychiatrist at the University of Pittsburgh, compared lead levels of 194 adolescents arrested in Pittsburgh with lead levels of 146 high school adolescents: The arrested youths had lead levels that were four times higher.
“Impulsivity means you ignore the consequences of what you do,” said Needleman, one of the country’s foremost experts on lead poisoning, explaining why Nevin’s theory is plausible. Lead decreases the ability to tell yourself, “If I do this, I will go to jail.”
Nevin’s work has been published mainly in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research. Within the field of neurotoxicology, Nevin’s findings are unsurprising, said Ellen Silbergeld, professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University and the editor of Environmental Research.
“There is a strong literature on lead and sociopathic behavior among adolescents and young adults with a previous history of lead exposure,” she said.
Two new studies by criminologists Richard Rosenfeld and Steven F. Messner have looked at Giuliani’s policing policies. They found that the mayor’s zero-tolerance approach to crime was responsible for 10 percent, maybe 20 percent, at most, of the decline in violent crime in New York City.
Nevin acknowledges that crime rates are rising in some parts of the United States after years of decline, but he points out that crime is falling in other places and is still low overall by historical measures. Also, the biggest reductions in lead poisoning took place by the mid-1980s, which may explain why reductions in crime might have tapered off by 2005. Lastly, he argues that older, recidivist offenders — who were exposed to lead as toddlers three or four decades ago — are increasingly accounting for much of the violent crime.
Nevin’s finding may even account for phenomena he did not set out to address. His theory addresses why rates of violent crime among black adolescents from inner-city neighborhoods have declined faster than the overall crime rate — lead amelioration programs had the biggest impact on the urban poor. Children in inner-city neighborhoods were the ones most likely to be poisoned by lead, because they were more likely to live in substandard housing that had lead paint and because public housing projects were often situated near highways.
Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes, for example, were built over the Dan Ryan Expressway, with 150,000 cars going by each day. Eighteen years after the project opened in 1962, one study found that its residents were 22 times more likely to be murderers than people living elsewhere in Chicago.
Nevin’s finding implies a double tragedy for America’s inner cities: Thousands of children in these neighborhoods were poisoned by lead in the first three quarters of the last century. Large numbers of them then became the targets, in the last quarter, of Giuliani-style law enforcement policies.
Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing.
If a company is harming the environment, force being used is acceptable to MOST libertarians. Keeping government out of (personal) peoples lives is not a bad thing so don’t try to make libertarians “evil” or “wrong”. Keeping government out of your personal life and my own is what makes us “FREE” and what makes our country great.
So not having lead cleaned up in our environment has nothing to do with libertarians- it has everything to do with big corporations getting away with it thanks to the corporation lovers- republicans and democrats. Look to laws and regulation dropped against corporations where our environment is concerned and you’ll see what I mean.
As far as crime rates…I don’t buy that lead is the leading cause of even a huge cause if a true cause at all- I do however know that when people don’t have jobs, or make very little money to make ends meet people tend to turn to criminal behavior to make something. Education is another. If one is not educated they tend to turn to crime. Fix those two things and crime would drop drastically. A drop out from high school is more likely to steal your personal belongings to sell for money then a person who has been affected by lead imo.
Nice post here.
LikeLike
Well, perhaps I was a little irate because some Libertarians seem to think that every problem would be solved if we just allowed laissez-faire free enterprise: “free markets solve everything” kind of thinking. To me, it seems obvious that corporations will run roughshod over the public if not restrained by regulation and regulatory agencies—which indeed were created in response to corporate excesses: the Food & Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, OSHA, EPA, and so on.
Interesting that you believe the studies the guy conducted are simply wrong. Any evidence you can cite? The arguments, from the sound of it, seem quite convincing to me, especially with the timetable being observed in different counties taking action against lead at different times. Why do you think the research is wrong?
LikeLike
Hey Michael,
I was a bit miffed to see the jab at Libertarians here. (I actually took you to be one, though I never asked on B&B or here) Although, of course you have every right to say whatever you want! Having stated that, I really think that if the market was left alone, it would correct itself in a much more appropriate way. Government controls lead to corruption as usual, $500 dollar toilet seats from “preferred contractors”, “lead paint abatement licensed contractors”, etc……. Lead paint? Well, most countries of the world still use it (out of need, not preference), and I would bet they don’t have any statistics that would show any correlation. Now, take a society that will readily use agency and aggression in the form of policing and governance to abuse others in that society, and viola!, you have a recipe for violence, suppressed aggression, scapegoats, etc. I sincerely think that is the big culprit here.. Still, nice posts as usual. Hope the book is doing well. (I will buy one when I stop being a burden to my family as “starving student”).
LikeLike
The problem—as I see—is that the market forces are slow to act and are helpless against the constant effort by businesses to externalize costs to keep prices down and profits up. For example, with no regulations regarding toxic wastes, businesses will dump it anywhere, externalizing the costs of clean-up and proper disposal; with no regulations regarding workplace safety, businesses won’t both the costs of maintaining a safe workplace (training, special equipment, revised production processes, etc.). These are not mere hypotheses for the sake of argument, they are actual observed happenings.
Businesses that might go to the trouble and cost of properly disposing of toxic wastes and of maintaining a safe workplace find their efforts undermined by the same market forces that are supposed by some to correct problems: those businesses must sell their products at a higher price, and find themselves underpriced by competitors who simply dump their toxic waste and have unsafe (and cheaper for the business, though not the workers and society) workplaces. Thus the lessons of experience have taught us.
The environmental lead issue is with us right now: businesses are getting cooperation from the Bush Administration to remove the restrictions on lead additives to gasoline. Businesses, I fear, have little interest in what is good for the public; their only concern is profit, and that is not a reliable guide to best outcomes overall.
I’m sure you’re right that poor countries don’t have the research that shows the effects of environmental lead on social behavior, but I don’t see the point. They also don’t have the research that, for example, shows the efficacy of some new medication or cancer treatment. But the research findings in Place A will also apply to Place B. Nevin’s research, which shows a strong correlation between lead exposure and social violence and crime in nine countries. He has evidence. He has shown close connections, and any argument against his position would also, I think, require evidence. He didn’t simply say, “This seems right,” he found data that (I believe) establishes the connection.
Lead abatement doesn’t necessarily require licensed lead abatement contractors and the like. As the article points out, it suffices to ensure that lead is not released into the environment via leaded gasoline, lead-laced smoke from incinerators, and the like.
Of course, I don’t believe anyone is taking the position that social violence and crime has a single cause. But the evidence seems quite strong that environmental lead is (a) one significant cause, and (b) a cause that we can readily do something about.
The book seems stable for now, though I’m already accumulating material for the next edition.
LikeLike
You caught me, I was more reacting to the Libertarian remark than the article you presented.
My poorly worded response is probably to blame here. I was using the term “licensed” to simply illustrate the trend of increase in governmental controls to increase their pocketbooks. For example, http://tinyurl.com/27j7nw
“For example, with no regulations regarding toxic wastes, businesses will dump it anywhere, externalizing the costs of clean-up and proper disposal; with no regulations regarding workplace safety, businesses won’t both the costs of maintaining a safe workplace (training, special equipment, revised production processes, etc.). These are not mere hypotheses for the sake of argument, they are actual observed happenings.”
————In my opinion, the only reason market forces are slow to act, is because of the governmental restrictions placed on the smaller, younger businesses, while free reign to “do as they please” (and more) is granted to the “industry leaders”, A.K.A. Halliburton, et al. In this case Halliburton is being “regulated” by allowing it to do as it damn well pleases, while Mr. Joe Blow’s business gets a bi-weekly visit from OSHA, gets cited and is taxed more per capita. I truly believe that in a real free market, (not a fake “free” one, as we have now) we as citizens and consumers can and will exercise our control over polluters and cheaters far greater and more efficiently than any governmental body can. The government uses the BLM to house the greatest polluting companies to do as they please, while they contribute to the governing body as compensation. A better description of this process (that I am sure you are aware of, is here.) http://tinyurl.com/24un2t
Well, I suppose we have a difference of opinion, though I think we can agree that Bush and his cronies need a swift kick in the behind on their way out, and hopefully soon.
Thanks Michael.
LikeLike
Certainly the Bush Administration has shown remarkable failures, both in intention and in execution. That is, they seem to operate totally from ideological and political considerations, with no regard or respect for facts and evidence, and when they do act, they are almost totally incompetent (e.g., the Coalitional Provisional Authority). In some cases, it’s not incompetence, but a deliberate undermining and sabotage programs that have in the past worked well (the FDA, the EPA, and others) in order to enable businesses to operate without regulation (which in my worldview is a bad idea, based on my observations of what businesses have done when not restrained by regulation, inspections, and the like). So I certainly agree it will be nice to see the back of Bush and his minions.
LikeLike