Analysis of Freakonomics Book Essay Example

Money is the root of the world and the behavior of people. Some would think that they are too good to be affected by incentives, but in the book Freakonomics written by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, it is proven otherwise. This book talks about how incentives affect everyone because they are human and must look out for themselves. Not only that but it looks at the correlation between two different ideas and how they come together just by the use of an incentive. Specifically, the authors look at the crack boom and the crime rate between 1970- late 1990s. They compare cops, parents, and criminals and why they are the way they are. As the authors dive deeper into the facts and logic, the more the readers realize that everyone is the same. As incentives increase throughout time, people allow themselves to skew their moral compasses for their own benefits. 

Levitt and Dubner first take an in depth look at criminals. One thing to note is that criminals are not born but they are made. All criminals are criminals because they had to survive some way and a nine to five wasn’t an option. Criminals only have themselves so they have to do anything they can, no matter the price. At the beginning of the 70’s was the start of the highest crime rate in the United States. During this time period, politicians and people in power were scared to lock up criminals with the fear of being racist, since more than half of the criminals were black. This gave a huge incentive for all criminals. Levitt and Dubner explained, “So if you were the kind of person who might want to commit a crime, the incentives were lining up in your favor: a slimmer likelihood of being convicted, a shorter prison term. Because criminals respond to incentives as readily as anyone, the result was a surge in crime” (Levitt Dubner 121). It was true, the crime rate between 1970 and 1990 skyrocketed because there was more in favor of the criminals than against them. The authors used an anecdote to effectively get their point across. They used this small piece of evidence to lead a larger main idea of this whole story. The bigger idea that it starts off is the decline of crime in the 1990s because of the lessened incentive for criminals. 

One would assume that there is nothing similar about a parent and a criminal, but they would be wrong. Though they don’t have the same morals of life, they still have much in common. Both criminals and parents have to deal with consequences of their actions but they were dealt the cards and had to do what was best for them. For a minute, let's consider a single parent who must use a day care center in order for their child to be watched so they could go to work. The authors introduced this idea. They conducted an experiment about using a $3 late fee for an Isreali day care center, an incentive for parents to pick up their kids on time. It didn’t work. Now, we look at criminals whose incentive is shorter prison terms and a decreased chance of being caught. But the driving factor for them both is fear. The authors stated, “If life on death row is safer than life on the streets, it’s hard to believe that the fear of execution is a driving force in a criminal’s calculus. Like the $3 fine for late arriving parents at the Israeli day-care centers. The negative of capital punishment simply isn’t serious enough for a criminal to change his behavior” (Levitt Dubner 123). Fear is a powerful tool or weapon that all people use. Criminals are fearful of prison, police officers, and getting caught. Parents are scared of being a bad parent and upsetting their child with disappointment. It’s used like an analogy, comparing both different types of fear to two different groups of people. It worked well because people always believe that criminals commit crime for fun when in reality, they need to live and are still human. But no one would bat an eye at parents and their fears, or their way of life because they are morally correct. 

The economy has a hold on every person but not many know or understand why. The economy is the production and consumption of products, goods and services. The only way the economy can stay stable is through money. Money is an incentive that gives and controls the economy. Every group has some sort of incentive that benefits them no matter how awful the repercussions may be. The crime drop can be explained by increased imprisonment, changes in the market for crack cocaine, the aging of the population, tougher gun control laws, the strong economy and increases in the number of police. However, the most interesting group is the increase of police because it was the least contributing group to the crime decrease. Levitt and Dubner explained, “That’s because when crime is rising, people clamor for protection, and invariably more money is found for cops. So if you just look at raw correlations between police and crime, you will find that when there are more police, there tends to be more crime” (Levitt Dubner 125). The purpose they were trying to prove is that no one, not even law enforcement, is above incentives. Not only does this discourage people who may need their assistance, but it shows that more than half of them probably joined for the sole purpose of the benefits it came with. Law enforcement is supposed to protect their citizens and be lawful, but accepting an incentive is discouraging to their character. 

Individuals will do what benefits them instead of benefitting the group. Every human has the same mindset of them against the world because it’s easier than hoping that people are good. Everyone has a different moral compass, different environment, lives, and incentives. Some incentives only help certain individuals but they can be skewed against them. If the economy didn’t run the world with money and incentives, would the world be peaceful or anarchist? Since everyone does only for themselves, the world would be a place of anarchy as fighting for the same would go on. Would this give it a chance to heal and change? Maybe not, but if incentives run the world, without incentives it would just be silence. Nobody would have different views, everyone would be the same, all morals would be rebuilt to adapt.