IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000089/002066.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bogotá: ¿Más Crimen? ¿Más Miedo?

Author

Listed:
  • Elvira María Restrepo
  • Álvaro José Moreno
  • Santiago Villegas

Abstract

La relación entre la percepción de seguridad y el crimen no siempre está atada a la victimización ni al el riesgo real de ser objeto de un acto delictivo, sino también al miedo de ser víctima de un delito. A partir de una encuesta orientada a la población de la Universidad de los Andes se encuentra que el miedo pesa más que la victimización en la percepción de seguridad de la administración Garzón en comparación con las tres administraciones precedentes (Mockus-Penalosa-Mockus). De otro lado, a pesar de que en Bogotá los índices de criminalidad para la mayoría de los delitos de mayor impacto ciudadano han disminuido, según estadísticas oficiales, la encuesta muestra que todavía una tercera parte de los entrevistados se siente más inseguros en la actual administración que en las tres anteriores. En este estudio pionero para Colombia se demuestra que la percepción de seguridad de los uniandinos en el espacio público y en el transporte público está más determinada por factores relacionados con el miedo al crimen que por causas atribuibles a la victimización subjetiva (propia o del círculo social cercano). Además, estadísticamente se corroboran creencias arraigadas en el tema del miedo como lo son la actitud de la población joven frente al riesgo de ser sujetos de un delito y la mayor seguridad frente al crimen que sienten los hombres respecto de las mujeres.

Suggested Citation

  • Elvira María Restrepo & Álvaro José Moreno & Santiago Villegas, 2006. "Bogotá: ¿Más Crimen? ¿Más Miedo?," Documentos CEDE 2066, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000089:002066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repositorio.uniandes.edu.co/bitstream/handle/1992/8033/dcede2006-45.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand, 2001. "Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 67-72, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luis Eduardo Sandoval, 2018. "Socio-economics characteristics and spatial persistence of homicides in Colombia, 2000-2010," Estudios de Economia, University of Chile, Department of Economics, vol. 45(1 Year 20), pages 51-77, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicholas Bloom & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2015. "Do Private Equity Owned Firms Have Better Management Practices?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 442-446, May.
    2. Mujcic, Redzo & Frijters, Paul, 2013. "Still Not Allowed on the Bus: It Matters If You're Black or White!," IZA Discussion Papers 7300, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    4. Lamar Pierce & Jason Snyder, 2015. "Unethical Demand and Employee Turnover," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 853-869, November.
    5. David, Paul A. & Shapiro, Joseph S., 2008. "Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 364-398, December.
    6. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    8. Aschhoff, Birgit & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2008. "Successful Patterns of Scientific Knowledge Sourcing: Mix and Match," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-033 [rev.], ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Preece, Gary & Shaw, Duncan & Hayashi, Haruo, 2013. "Using the Viable System Model (VSM) to structure information processing complexity in disaster response," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 209-218.
    10. Mary C. Daly & Daniel J. Wilson & Norman J. Johnson, 2013. "Relative Status and Well-Being: Evidence from U.S. Suicide Deaths," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1480-1500, December.
    11. Patricia Funk, 2012. "How accurate are surveyed preferences for public policies? Evidence from a unique institutional setup," Economics Working Papers 1334, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Nov 2013.
    12. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2007. "Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1351-1408.
    13. Sébastien Foudi, 2024. "Are risk attitude, impatience, and impulsivity related to the individual discount rate? Evidence from energy-efficient durable goods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(4), pages 627-661, June.
    14. Brunner, Beatrice & Kuhn, Andreas, 2014. "Immigration, Cultural Distance and Natives' Attitudes Towards Immigrants: Evidence from Swiss Voting Results," IZA Discussion Papers 8409, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Olof Johansson‐Stenman & Minhaj Mahmud & Peter Martinsson, 2009. "Trust and Religion: Experimental Evidence from Rural Bangladesh," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(303), pages 462-485, July.
    16. Yan Leung Cheung & P. Raghavendra Rau & Aris Stouraitis, 2012. "How much do firms pay as bribes and what benefits do they get? Evidence from corruption cases worldwide," NBER Working Papers 17981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Ekaterina Oparina & Sorawoot Srisuma, 2022. "Analyzing Subjective Well-Being Data with Misclassification," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 730-743, April.
    18. Eiichi Tomiura & Banri Ito & Hiroshi Mukunoki & Ryuhei Wakasugi, 2016. "Individual Characteristics, Behavioral Biases, and Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey in Japan," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1081-1095, November.
    19. Döpke Jörg & Fritsche Ulrich & Waldhof Gabi, 2019. "Theories, Techniques and the Formation of German Business Cycle Forecasts : Evidence from a survey of professional forecasters," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(2), pages 203-241, April.
    20. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2023. "The rationalizability of survey responses," Economics Working Papers 1863, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crimen percepción de seguridad miedo al crimen análisis;

    JEL classification:

    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
    • H56 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - National Security and War
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000089:002066. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Universidad De Los Andes-Cede (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceandco.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.