Back
 AJIBM  Vol.6 No.7 , July 2016
The Economic Analysis of Crime Behavior—Deduction of the Game Model between the Law-Man and the Offender
Shanshan Pan
Show more
Abstract: George Tsebelis (1989) first uses the game model to analyze the behavior of police and public, but he has been questioned by many scholars in the related research. George’ conclusion and the scholars’ opinions are based on the premise that no pure strategy Nash equilibrium exists in the game. In fact, pure strategy Nash equilibrium exists in certain conditions, and it is necessary to study it because of the stabilization. In this paper, we research on the interaction of the law-man and the offender, and study how the law-man type and the conviction rate influence the behavior of the game participants. This paper also tests the conclusion of George, in the 1V1 game with the 100% conviction rate, the conclusion is correct that the increase of punishment can’t reduce the crime. This paper further discusses the law enforcement range that the law-man can be competent, and how the law-man type, law enforcement costs and the number of law-men impact the law enforcement range.
Keywords: Law-Man, Offender, Game, The Law-Man Type, Conviction Rate
Cite this paper: Pan, S. (2016) The Economic Analysis of Crime Behavior—Deduction of the Game Model between the Law-Man and the Offender. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 6, 822-828. doi: 10.4236/ajibm.2016.67076.
References

[1]   Becker, G.S. (1968) Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169-217.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/259394

[2]   Tsebelis, G. (1989) The Abuse of Probability in Political Analysis: The Robinson Crusoe Fallacy. American Political Science Review, 83, 77-91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956435

[3]   Tsebelis, G. (1989) Penalty Has No Impact on Crime: A Game Theoretic Analysis. Rationality and Society, 2, 255-286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1043463190002003002

[4]   Bianco, W.T., Ordeshook, P.C. and Tsebelis, G. (1990) Crime and Punishment: Are One-Shot, Two-Person Games Enough? The American Political Science Review, 84, 569-586.

[5]   Weissing, F. and Ostrom, E. (1991) Crime and Punishment: Further Reflections on the Counterintuitive Results of Mixed Strategy Equilibria Games. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3, 343-350.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0951692891003003006

[6]   Hirshleifer, J. and Rasmusen, E. (1992) Are Equilibrium Strategies Unaffected by Incentives? Journal of Theoretical Politics, 4, 353-367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0951692892004003007

[7]   Tsebelis, G. (1993) Penalty and Crime: Further Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 5, 349-374.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0951692893005003003

[8]   Cox, G.W. (1994) A Note on Crime and Punishment. Public Choice, 78, 115-124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01053369

[9]   Andreozzi, L. (2004) Rewarding Policemen Increases Crime. Another Surprising Result from the Inspection Game. Public Choice, 121, 69-82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-004-6166-x

[10]   Marjit, S. and Shi, H.L. (1998) Rewarding Policemen Increases Crime. Another Surprising Result from the Inspection Game. Public Choice, 121, 69-82.

[11]   Allen, F., Qian, J. and Shen, L. (2007) Corruption and Competition. Social Science Electronic Publishing, Beijing.

 
 
Top