IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lec/leecon/10-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Behavioral Economics of Crime and Punishment

Author

Listed:
  • Sanjit Dhami
  • Ali al-Nowaihi

Abstract

The Becker proposition (BP) is one of the founding pillars of the modern literature on Law and Economics. It states that it is optimal to impose the severest possible punishment (to maintain effective deterrence) at the lowest possible probability (to economize on enforcement costs). The BP is not consistent with the evidence. This is known as the Becker paradox. Using evidence from a wide range of phenomena we show that none of the proposed explanations for the Becker paradox are satisfactory. The BP has largely been considered within an expected utility framework. We clarify the Becker proposition and its welfare implications under expected utility. We show that BP also holds under rank dependent expected utility and cumulative prospect theory, the two main alternatives to expected utility. al-Nowaihi and Dhami (2010a) recently propose composite cumulative prospect theory that combines prospect theory with cumulative prospect theory. Under plausible conditions CCP is able to resolve the Becker paradox. Our article opens the way for incorporating non-expected utility theories into an economic analysis of criminal activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanjit Dhami & Ali al-Nowaihi, 2010. "The Behavioral Economics of Crime and Punishment," Discussion Papers in Economics 10/14, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester, revised Jul 2010.
    • Handle: RePEc:lec:leecon:10/14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.le.ac.uk/economics/research/RePEc/lec/leecon/dp10-14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2010. "Composite Prospect Theory: A proposal to combine ‘prospect theory’ and ‘cumulative prospect theory’," Discussion Papers in Economics 10/11, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    2. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2010. "Probability Weighting Functions," Discussion Papers in Economics 10/10, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    3. Avner Bar-Ilan & Bruce Sacerdote, 2001. "The Response to Fines and Probability of Detection in a Series of Experiments," NBER Working Papers 8638, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Bar-Ilan, Avner & Sacerdote, Bruce, 2004. "The Response of Criminals and Noncriminals to Fines," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Kolm, Serge-Christophe, 1973. "A note on optimum tax evasion," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 265-270, July.
    6. Camerer, Colin & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. "Experimental Markets for Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 265-299, September.
    7. Ali al-Nowaihi & Ian Bradley & Sanjit Dhami, 2006. "The Utility Function Under Prospect Theory," Discussion Papers in Economics 06/15, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    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. Pyne, Derek, 2012. "Deterrence: Increased enforcement versus harsher penalties," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 561-562.
    2. Antonio Nicita & Matteo Rizzolli, 2014. "In Dubio Pro Reo. Behavioral Explanations of Pro-defendant Bias in Procedures," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(3), pages 554-580.

    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. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2010. "Probability Weighting Functions," Discussion Papers in Economics 10/10, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    2. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2010. "Composite Prospect Theory: A proposal to combine ‘prospect theory’ and ‘cumulative prospect theory’," Discussion Papers in Economics 10/11, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    3. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2010. "The Behavioral Economics of Insurance," Discussion Papers in Economics 10/12, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester, revised Apr 2010.
    4. Dhami, Sanjit & al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2013. "An extension of the Becker proposition to non-expected utility theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 10-20.
    5. Sanjit Dhami & Ali al-Nowaihi, 2006. "Hang ’em with probability zero: Why does it not work?," Discussion Papers in Economics 06/14, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    6. Antonio Nicita & Matteo Rizzolli, 2014. "In Dubio Pro Reo. Behavioral Explanations of Pro-defendant Bias in Procedures," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(3), pages 554-580.
    7. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2020. "On booms that never bust: Ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Constantinos Antoniou & Emilios C. Galariotis & Daniel Read, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion, Company Size and the Pricing of Earnings Forecasts," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 20(3), pages 633-651, June.
    9. Ali Ahmed & Göran Skogh, 2006. "Choices at various levels of uncertainty: An experimental test of the restated diversification theorem," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 183-196, December.
    10. Hundsdoerfer, Jochen & Sielaff, Christian & Blaufus, Kay & Kiesewetter, Dirk & Weimann, Joachim, 2010. "The name game for contributions: Influence of labeling and earmarking on the perceived tax burden," Discussion Papers 2010/12, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    11. Karine Darjinoff & Francois Pannequin, 2000. "Demande d'assurance : Faut-il abandonner le critère de l'espérance d'utilité ?," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla00004, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    12. Bayer, Ralph & Cowell, Frank, 2016. "Tax compliance by firms and audit policy," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 38-52.
    13. Rogelio Ladrón de Guevara Cortés & Alina Gómez Mejía & Víctor Peña Vargas & Rosa Marina Madrid Paredones, 2020. "Influencia del nivel de avance educativo y el género en la toma de decisiones financieras: una aproximación desde la Prospect Theory," Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, Universidad Católica de Colombia, vol. 12(1), pages 19-54, June.
    14. Browne, Oliver R. & Gazze, Ludovica & Greenstone, Michael & Rostapshova, Olga, 2022. "Man vs. Machine : Technological Promise and Political Limits of Automated Regulation Enforcement," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 646, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    15. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    16. Salmon, Timothy C. & Shniderman, Adam, 2019. "Ambiguity in criminal punishment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 361-376.
    17. Hsiao-Chi Chen & Shi-Miin Liu, 2007. "Dynamic Incentive Contracts in Multiple Penalty Systems with No-commitment to Tenure-track Auditing," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 255-294, April.
    18. Sanjit Dhami & Ali al-Nowaihi, 2007. "Optimal income taxation in the presence of tax evasion: Expected utility versus prospect theory," Discussion Papers in Economics 07/10, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    19. Piolatto Amedeo, 2015. "Itemised Deductions: A Device to Reduce Tax Evasion," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 16(4), pages 422-438, December.
    20. Langenmayr, Dominika, 2017. "Voluntary disclosure of evaded taxes — Increasing revenue, or increasing incentives to evade?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 110-125.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Behavioral economics; Illegal activity; Expected utility theory; Rank dependent expected utility; Prospect theory; Prelec and composite Prelec probability weighting functions; Composite cumulative prospect theory; Punishment functions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lec:leecon:10/14. 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: Abbie Sleath (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deleiuk.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.