51 pages 1 hour read

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2005

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapters 3-4Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 3 Summary: “Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?”

In learning how people make decisions, it’s important to ask good questions. One way is to examine conventional wisdom, the “simple, convenient, comfortable, and comforting” ideas we prefer, and inspect it for “the contrails of sloppy or self-interested thinking” (86).

During the 1980s, homeless advocate Mitch Snyder claimed that 3 million Americans were homeless and that 45 die each second. People accepted these numbers until someone pointed out that such a death rate would lead to 1.4 billion deaths. Snyder admitted he’d made up the number of homeless people because the press hounded him for statistics.

The media needs shocking reports to attract readers; politicians and advocates need stunning numbers to galvanize their followers. Pundits championed the idea that Iraq in 2003 possessed major weapons of mass destruction; women’s rights leaders argued that one in three American women is assaulted or raped (it’s one in eight); many diseases are presented as worse than they are and thereby get more research funding. One of America’s most violent cities, Atlanta, hid police crime reports to win the right to host the 1996 Olympic Games, and in 2002 the city was still hiding crime reports, 22,000 in that year alone.

Meanwhile, police in many cities, fighting an upsurge in crime connected to the crack cocaine market, portrayed drug dealers as massively beweaponed millionaires. Instead, most crack sellers lived in housing projects with their mothers.

Sudhir Venkatesh, in 1989 a sociology PhD student at the University of Chicago, ventured into a poor Black neighborhood with survey questions about their lives. He encountered members of a drug gang, a unit of the Black Disciples, who almost shot him but instead allowed him to study their operations. Venkatesh lived with them for six years under the eye of local gang boss JT. The researcher witnessed members being shot to death. He also obtained a set of their account books.

With his PhD, Venkatesh won appointment to the Harvard Society of Fellows, but he kept returning to Chicago to visit his gangland acquaintances. At Harvard, he met Steven Levitt and collaborated with him on a paper about the gang, based on the notebooks Venkatesh possessed. They realized that the Black Disciples was organized similarly to McDonald’s, with a chain of command and a board of directors. JT controlled a 12-block area, aided by three lieutenants and 25 to 75 “foot soldiers” who did the selling. At the bottom of the organizational chart were 200 “rank and file” who paid dues and hoped to join the foot soldiers (97).

The account books were filled in at the height of the crack boom, and local revenue was solid, averaging $32,000 per month and peaking at $64,000. Subtracting costs—drugs, board of directors fee, legal fees, mercenaries, weapons, “community events,” funerals, family stipends, and the like—the local gang netted $14,000 a month; JT kept $8,500, or about $100,000 a year. Board members netted $500,000, though a third of them were in jail at any one time. Foot soldiers earned barely $3.30 an hour; this is why most drug dealers lived with their moms. On top of that, street sales were dangerous; in the four-year period covered by the notebooks, soldiers had a one-in-four chance of dying violently.

The drug gang path seemed glamorous when compared with the rest of the community, where two-thirds of men were unemployed, only 5% had college degrees, and a high-paying job was work as a janitor. Four factors determine a wage: the number of people competing for a given job, the amount of skill the job requires, how unpleasant it is, and how in-demand it is. Drug dealing, a low-skill job with a line of applicants, is low-paying work.

Most jobs are worked as if part of a tournament: Beginners labor at grunt jobs for low wages in hope of rising to lucrative top positions. This applies equally to editorial assistants and crack dealers.

A gang turf war sprang up, and JT had to increase pay to foot soldiers even while sales suffered. JT didn’t want any of this, but some of his foot soldiers, motivated to make a name for themselves as fearless warriors, got involved in shootouts. Eventually, JT calmed things down, and profits soared under his highly organized system. At age 34, JT was promoted to the Disciples board of directors. Shortly thereafter, a federal indictment shut down the Black Disciples, and JT went to prison.

The main drug the gang sold, crack cocaine, was developed as a cheap alternative to the much more costly powdered cocaine used by celebrities and the wealthy. In the late 1970s, a Nicaraguan, Oscar Danilo Blandon, began importing crack to America, where it quickly grew into a major social and legal problem. Drug gangs flourished and communities suffered. Courts got tough on drug crime and sent dealers to prisons, where they met Colombian drug importers and forged new relationships. Back on the street, those gangsters redoubled sales of a drug that was easy to sell and highly addictive.

Black communities progressed greatly after World War II, improving their employment, education, and health. Crack cocaine, addictive and crime-promoting, did great damage, reversing those good trends by as much as 10 years. During the crack craze, the murder rate for big-city Black youth quadrupled.

Then the crime rate suddenly began to fall.

Chapter 4 Summary: “Where Have All the Criminals Gone?”

To increase the Romanian population, dictator Nicolae Ceausescu in 1966 overturned the nation’s liberal abortion law; he also sent out “Menstrual Police” to test women for pregnancy, and those who failed to become pregnant were fined. A year later, the birth rate doubled. This cohort of babies had much worse life outcomes than their older siblings, including greater involvement in crime.

The abortion ban lasted until 1989, when Ceausescu—who enjoyed a lavish lifestyle while the rest of the country suffered—was overthrown and executed. At about this time, a US crime wave began to peak, though during the 1990s the crime rate suddenly plummeted.

Abortion may have had something to do with the American outcome. Pundits, who had failed to predict the sudden decrease in unlawfulness, nonetheless proclaimed the causes as “innovative policing strategies,” “increased reliance on prisons,” “changes in crack and other drug markets,” “aging of the population,” “tougher gun-control laws,” a “strong economy,” and other reasons (119).

The drop in crime was 40 times larger than the drop in unemployment, and crime increased during the boom years of the 1960s, so the economy wasn’t the cause. A crackdown on criminals increased the prison populations fourfold; this removed about one-third of crime. Crime also dropped in cities where more police were hired, accounting for about 10% of the improvement.

In 1994 New York City Mayor Giuliani hired William Bratton to improve police performance. Bratton introduced new policing strategies, including the “broken window theory” (127), which suggests cracking down on small crimes—a brick through a window, a junkie urinating in an alley, someone hopping a subway turnstile—lest these grow quickly into big crimes. The city also went on a police hiring binge. The broken window campaign had little effect, but the new hires did make a difference. Bratton later became police chief of Los Angeles, where he continued his innovations but also focused on hiring more officers.

Gun bans and registration laws don’t affect crime rates because nearly all criminals obtain their weapons on the black market. Gun buybacks yield too few weapons to have a significant effect on murder rates. Right-to-carry laws—to help law-abiding citizens protect themselves—also have no effect. Longer prison sentences for possession of illegal weapons, however, do reduce crime somewhat.

The big growth in violent crime during the crack binge was mostly due to drug sellers shooting each other over contested sales territory. The shootings slowed as price competition drove down profit. In short, “It was no longer worth killing someone to steal their crack turf” (135). Nonetheless, crack cocaine never went away: Almost 5% of all arrests in America are for cocaine, down slightly from 6% during crack’s violent heyday.

One theory was that an aging population becomes less violent, which is true, but this process is far too slow to account for the sudden drop in crime during the late 1990s. Meanwhile, one of the largest possible causes, legalized abortions, was overlooked.

Studies in Europe show that unwanted children commit more crimes as adults. In the US, the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalized abortion nationwide, and by 1981, 1.6 million abortions were carried out annually. A large portion of these were performed on impoverished single mothers, characteristics that “are among the strongest predictors that a child will have a criminal future” (139). The odds worsen for teenage mothers, who are especially ill-equipped to care for a young child.

The crime rate dropped in the US during the late 1990s just as the children of the early abortion era came of age: “Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime” (140).

Critics assert that abortion rates and crime rates are merely correlated—they appear together by happenstance, but one doesn’t cause the other. The proof, however, lies in statistics from states that legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Several states, including New York, California, and Washington, permitted abortions at least two years prior to the Supreme Court decision; their crime rates dropped sooner and more steeply than other US states. In general, states with the highest abortion rates experienced the largest drops in crime, and the decline was entirely among young criminals. Canada and Australia found similar effects among their own populations.

It’s appropriate to feel troubled by such an “unintended benefit” of liberalized abortion laws. Some opponents argue that abortion itself is a violent crime, and that the 37 million US abortions up to 2004 constitute a holocaust far worse than the one perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews. Even for someone who believes a fetus is worth only 1/100th of a person, the annual 1.5 million US abortions amounts to killing 15,000 people a year. Thus, abortions seem to reduce crime, but whether it’s worth the cost is a matter of opinion.

Chapters 3-4 Analysis

Chapters 3 and 4 focus on crime and abortion. In Chapter 4 the authors connect the two topics in the book’s most controversial section.

The authors point out that gangsters respond to normal career incentives, such as accepting low-paying work on the chance they may rise into high-paying positions. Likewise, bit-part actors want to become stars; Little League players hope to reach the major leagues; and mailroom workers dream of the executive suite. This shows that even in the world of crime, job opportunities work in much the same way as in legal businesses.

The dilemma for drug dealers is that a life of crime can appear to be the best chance to escape the inner-city cycle of poverty, where lack of opportunity and education lead to high unemployment that can last for generations. Selling drugs on the street is low-paying and high-risk, but it’s a path that just might lead out of the ghetto.

Gangster foot soldiers are well aware of the problems with their path. The authors mention that sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh, while studying Chicago street gang members, often received requests for referrals that might get them jobs as janitors at Venkatesh’s university. Drug dealing definitely isn’t the glamorous career often portrayed in the media.

Sometimes things seem to get better by themselves, though it may require a lot of thought to tease out the reasons. The downswing in crime during the 1990s puzzled experts, who struggled to prove that better policing, better laws, and more economic opportunity caused the sudden drop.

A major factor in changing crime statistics is simply the rise and fall of the population of young men aged 14-24, who commit a great bulk of crimes, including half of all murders. The post-World War II “baby boom” cohort aged out of their crime-prone years by the 1980s, and crime declined, but the bulk of boomer children entered their late teens in the early 1990s, when crime rose again. (Travis, Jeremy, and Michelle Waul. “Reflections on the Crime Decline: Lessons for the Future? Proceedings from the Urban Institute Crime Decline Forum.” Urban Institute,

urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/60536/410546-Reflections-on-the-Crime-Decline.PDF, August 2002.)

Freakonomics suggests the crime collapse that followed was due partly to a drop in unwanted children after the legalization of abortion in 1973. This assertion is by far the book’s most divisive, and the source of the harshest criticism leveled against Levitt and Dubner. One critic questioned their methods, and the authors replied with a paper that admitted to some errors but stood by their basic claims. The authors also countered that the accusations themselves depended on faulty assumptions. (Donohue, John J., and Steven Levitt. “Measurement Error, Legalized Abortion, the Decline in Crime: A Response to Foote and Goetz (2005).” University of Chicago, pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/ResponseToFooteGoetz2006.pdf, Jan. 2006.)

A major problem with the abortion theory is that it smacks of eugenics, the study of ways to improve human populations by encouraging some traits and discouraging others. Eugenics was a popular idea in Europe and America during the early 20th century, when many laws were passed to enable forced sterilization, marriage prohibitions, economic penalties, and other efforts to reduce populations of certain peoples, including racial groups and people with low IQ. Eugenics lost popularity after the Nazis in World War II slaughtered millions of Jews and others for eugenic reasons. (Bashford, Alison, and Philippa Levine, ed. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. Oxford University Press, 2010.)

However, the authors make clear that they’re not in any way arguing for abortion as a cure for crime. Lost in all the controversy is the underlying message of the book, that people make decisions based on what they believe will improve their personal situations, not on what is considered proper. The abortion-as-crime-stopper theory isn’t an argument for or against abortion but a commentary on how decisions made in one part of life can affect a completely different part in unexpected ways.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
Unlock IconUnlock all 51 pages of this Study Guide

Plus, gain access to 9,150+ more expert-written Study Guides.

Including features:

+ Mobile App
+ Printable PDF
+ Literary AI Tools