كليدواژه :
نابرابري , جرم , داده هاي پانل , استان هاي ايران
چكيده فارسي :
جلوگيري از ارتكاب جرائم، يكي از ملزومات هر جامعه سالم است. نابرابريهاي اقتصادي و توزيع هاي غيرمنصفانه مي‌تواند عامل مهمي براي بروز جرم شود. پيچيدگي نسبت ميان عدالت و انصاف و شاخصهاي توزيع مواهب اقتصادي، به اهميت و ضرورت بررسي ارتباط دو متغير ميافزايد. در اين پژوهش تأثير شاخصهاي نابرابري توزيع درون جمعيتي استانها مانند ضريب جيني و شاخص هاي توزيع بودجه دولتي ميان استانها مانند شاخصهاي تبعيض (ظرفيت و نياز و شاخص كلي) محاسبه شده در پژوهش عزتي (1392) بر جرم كل (مجموع سرقت، قتل عمد و جرائم خشن) بررسي مي‌شود. بررسي فرضيه‌ها در 4 مدل و به روش پانل پوياي گشتاورهاي تعميم‌يافته (GMM) در دوره زماني 1394-1379 استفاده شده است. نتايج نشان داده است كه تأثير هر كدام از شاخصهاي نابرابري اقتصادي بر جرم، مثبت و معنيدار بوده است. تأثير بيكاري، نرخ شهرنشيني و توليد ناخالص داخلي سرانه بر جرم، مثبت و معنيدار است. همچنين تأثير اندازه دولت بر جرم، منفي و معنيدار است. نتايج نشان ميدهد كه براي كاهش جرم و آسيبهاي اجتماعي بايد از سياستهاي اقتصادي كاهش نابرابري و تبعيض استفاده كرد. همچنين آزمون عليت پانل، بين شاخصهاي مختلف نابرابري و جرم نشان داده است كه ضريب جيني، تبعيض ظرفيت و نياز علت آماري جرم هستند؛ اما رابطه عكس آن برقرار نيست.
چكيده لاتين :
Introduction
The main keys that influence crime rates are examined from two economic and sociological points of view. Preventing crime is one of the requirements of any healthy society. Economic inequalities and unfair distribution can be the main reasons of crimes. The complexity of the relationship between justice and fairness on the one hand and the indicators of the distribution of economic benefits from the other hand admit the essentiality of the examining relationship between income inequality and crime rates. Recent researches have shown that income inequalities and economic discrimination are among the top priority factors that affect social crimes. This research studies the effect of various economic justice indicators on crime rates in the provinces of Iran.
Theoretical frame work
Studies show that the economic situation has significant effects on individual activities, including crime. In addition, the feeling of being deprived of success and exacerbating this feeling in relation to successful people (the existence of inequality) can be a source of criminal behavior (Stolzenberg et al., 2006).
People who are frustrated by their failures in their community become more annoying when confronted with successful people around them. According to this theory, poor people in a situation of high inequality are more likely to commit criminal acts (Enamorado, et al., 2016).
The sense of deprivation can be due to various factors such as belonging to an ethnic minority, Ethnic heterogeneity, or income inequality. Runciman& Runciman, (1966) argues in the theory of relative deprivation that income inequality has created a sense of expropriation in one person and increases injustice, thereby increasing the amount of crime committed by increasing inequality of income (Rufrancos et al., 2013). Economic and social inequalities increase the crime rate by weakening social integration and increasing the social class gap (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010).
Methodology
Choe (2008) shows that the amount of crime in the past period has a great effect on the crimes of the current period. Therefore, to test the hypotheses, the GMM Arellano and Bond (1991) method is used to estimate the model. The following models are estimated for 28 provinces of Iran during the period 2000-2015.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Where is the number of crimes divided by province population, represents the Gini coefficient, is discrimination indicator from a capacity viewpoint, is discrimination indicator from a need viewpoint and is the average of and .
Economic discrimination index is the province's current and capital government budget divided by the capacity share (population, value-added, and area), and share of needs (unemployment rate, illiteracy rate, and life expectancy) of each province[1]. expresses the unemployment rate, is per capita GDP, is government size (division of provincial government expenditures on provincial GDP)
and is the urbanization rate (urban population divided by the total population).
