487 1092 1 PB PDF

International Journal Of Scientific Research And Education
||Volume||2||Issue||10||Pages-2166-2190||October-2014|| ISSN (e): 2321-7545

Website: http://ijsae.in
An Economic Analysis of IPC Crimes And SLL Crimes In India
Authors
Dr.Anupreet Kaur Mavi
UIAMS, Panjab University, Chandigarh
ABSTRACT
Crime is the violation of the rules and regulations enforced by the society from time to time for which definite punishment is
prescribed by law. Members in every society are expected to act according to its established norms and laws. But when an individual
finds it difficult or impossible to satisfy his wants and desires in a direct and socially accepted manner, he encounters the alternative
of renouncing his motive or attempting to find a substitute satisfaction. When good solutions are not available, he engages himself in
anti-social behaviour of criminal nature. The area of crime and economic development has remained a little too far away from the
purview of scholars and researchers in the sense that the first serious attempt at an econometric analysis related to this area was by
the economist Isaac Ehrlich (1973). There is another reason why protection from violence is a "capability" of much interest: it does
not necessarily improve as income levels rise. Many other basic capabilities, such as nutrition, longevity, and literacy, are positively
related to per capita income and tend to improve with economic growth even in the absence of direct intervention. Dealing with
violence in a society is, therefore, intrinsically a matter of public action. The latter, in turn, calls for careful investigation of the
Dr.Anupreet Kaur Mavi IJSRE Volume 2 Issue 10 October 2014 Page 2166
causes of violence. War-torn zones are not the best site for a household survey, and even basic data on criminal violence in
developing countries are seldom available in a convenient and reliable form. Thus this study is a trivial attempt to study the impact of
certain macro economic factors on crime(IPC and SLL both). Keeping this in mind it was decided to analyse the IPC and SLL crimes
in India over a period of time with respect to some prominent macro-economic variables like urban population as percent of total
population, GDP per capita PPP, unemployment rate. The rest of the article is organized into four sections: Section II contains the
causes and trends of IPC and SLL crime in India. The theoretical framework is present in section III. The methodology employed and
estimation results are contained in section IV. Section V concludes with lessons for policy. The results so obtained clarified that 64
per cent of the variations in the dependent variable are explained by the three predictor variables. But it is clear from the table of
coefficients that only urban population as per cent of total population and GDP per capita PPP are significantly important variables
having an impact on Total All India Crime(IPC +SLL). It was observed that the urban population as percent of total population
seemed to have a significant impact on the following types of IPC Crimes – rape, kidnapping & abduction, dacoity, preparation of
dacoity, robbery, theft, criminal breach of trust, cheating, counterfeiting, hurt/ grievious hurt, dowry deaths, assault on women with
intent to outrage her modesty, causing death by negligence, other IPC crimes and cruelty by husband his relatives. Whereas the IPC
crimes like murder, attempt to commit murder, C H not amounting to murder, burglary, riots, arson, importation of girls from foreign
country and insult to modesty of women turned out to be statistically insignificant. , it was observed that excise Act, Explosives Act,
Immoral Traffic Act, Indian Railway Act, Protection of Civil Rights Act, Indian Passport Act, Essential commodity Act, Terrorism and
Disruption Act, Dowry Prohibition Act, Indecent Representation of Women Act, Copyright Act and Forest Act were statistically
significant.
Keywords: IPC crime, SLL crime, GDP, Urban population, dynamics of crime.
INTRODUCTION
Crime is the violation of the rules and regulations enforced by the society from time to time for which definite punishment is
prescribed by law. Members in every society are expected to act according to its established norms and laws. But when an individual
finds it difficult or impossible to satisfy his wants and desires in a direct and socially accepted manner, he encounters the alternative of
renouncing his motive or attempting to find a substitute satisfaction. When good solutions are not available, he engages himself in
anti-social behaviour of criminal nature. According to Paul Tappan, “crime is an intentional act or omission in violation of criminal
law (statutory and case law) committed without defense or justification, and sanctioned by the state as a felony or
misdemeanor”(Tappan,1960). “Crime is an act of violation of law, and criminal is a person who does an act in violation of law”. The
concept of crime is an unusually difficult one, since it is difficult to find any definition of crime that does not have a large element of
circularity. In general, crimes are committed as events and actions that are prescribed by the criminal law of a particular country.
Crime is a major source of social concern today in India. All daily newspapers devote a significant proportion of column inches to
reports of murder and theft and accounts of sensational trials. Increases in crime rates will often be treated as headline news.
The area of crime and economic development has remained a little too far away from the purview of scholars and researchers in the
sense that the first serious attempt at an econometric analysis related to this area was by the economist Isaac Ehrlich (1973). In his
seminal paper, "Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation" the author had used sophisticated
(i.e. multivariate) statistical methods about 41 years ago. On what concerns the focus of the empirical crime-literature, we must
conclude that more than 90 per cent of all studies under investigation deal with questions concerning causes of crime. In contrast to
that, the number of studies investigating the consequences of crime and/or its interactions with other variables is rather small. One
possible reason (among others) why violence is an under-re-searched issue in development studies is the paucity of relevant data.
Freedom from violence, as an aspect of the quality of life, is a neglected issue in development studies. Most people would rather avoid
being mugged, beaten, wounded, or tortured, and it is also nice to live without fear of these traumatic experiences. Thus, protection
from violence may be thought of as one of the "capability that contribute to the quality of life (Sen 1985). Violence also affects human
well-being in indirect ways, as when armed conflicts undermine economic growth or the functioning of public services. If
development is concerned with improving the quality of life, the issue of violence should be a major interest of the discipline. Yet, it
tends to receive little attention outside specialized circles. There is another reason why protection from violence is a "capability" of
much interest: it does not necessarily improve as income levels rise. Many other basic capabilities, such as nutrition, longevity, and
literacy, are positively related to per capita income and tend to improve with economic growth even in the absence of direct
intervention. Protection from violence, however, is not a convenient byproduct of economic growth, and indeed there are spectacular
cases of violence rising against a background of rapid improvement in per capita income and other development indicators. Dealing
with violence in a society is, therefore, intrinsically a matter of public action. The latter, in turn, calls for careful investigation of the
causes of violence. War-torn zones are not the best site for a household survey, and even basic data on criminal violence in developing
countries are seldom available in a convenient and reliable form. Thus this study is a trivial attempt to study the impact of certain
macro economic factors on crime(IPC and SLL both). keeping this in mind it was decided to analyse the IPC and SLL crimes in India
over a period of time with respect to some prominent macro-economic variables like urban population as percent of total population,
GDP per capita PPP, unemployment rate. The rest of the article is organized into four sections: Section II contains the causes and
trends of IPC and SLL crime in India. The theoretical framework is present in section III. The methodology employed and estimation
results are contained in section IV. Section V concludes with lessons for policy.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The study titled ‘Development and Validation of Scientific Indicators of the Relationship Between Criminality, Social Cohesion and
Economic Performance’ by Entorf and Spengler(2000) intends to contribute to a better understanding of the interactions between
criminality, economic performance and social cohesion. The authors try to achieve this aim by evaluating the existing economic and
criminological research (with a special focus on quantitative research) and by carrying out own empirical investigations on the basis of
a panel consisting of national time series from the 15 EU member states, an international cross-section of nations and a unique set of
regional panel data originating from eight EU member states. Empirical results about causes of crime reveal the crime reducing
potential of intact family values. A smaller number of divorces and earlier marriage significantly reduce delinquency. By the same
token, less efficient child care as a consequence of lacking family cohesion might explain the crime enhancing effects found for
increasing female labour force participation rates. Further evidence supporting the interdependence of crime and the labour market
show up in significant parameter estimates for indicators of unemployment, fixed-term contracts and part-time working. Furthermore,
we find that higher wealth is associated with higher property crime rates and more drug-related offences, and that in turn drug offences
foster the incidence of property crime. Compared to studies assessing causes of crime, investigations on its consequences are rare. In
order to contribute to the closure of this gap, a special focus of our analysis is to investigate the impact of crime on economic
performance. Using highly disaggregated regional data we find evidence that employment as well as GDP growth rates are negatively
affected by the incidence of criminality. Interestingly, this result does not show up when the analyses are performed with data from the
national level. Regarding the importance of social cohesion on criminality and the strong evidence of reversal effects of crime on
economics, one may conclude that fighting crime should not only be a matter of domestic policy, but also of social policy and of
selfish economic interests, i.e. of economic policy. The study intends to contribute to a better understanding of the interactions
between criminality, economic performance and social cohesion. The authors have made an attempt to achieve this aim by evaluating
the existing economic and criminological research and by carrying out own empirical investigation on the basis of international panel
data sets from different levels of regional aggregation. Empirical results with respect to the causes of crime clearly reveal the crime
reducing potential of family cohesion and the link between crime and the labour market. Furthermore, it was observed that higher
wealth is associated with higher rates of property crime and of drug-related offences. Drug offences themselves turn out to be robust
factors of property crimes. Compared to studies assessing the causes of crime, investigations on its consequences are relatively rare. In
our analysis, we investigate the impact of crime on economic performance. We find evidence that employment as well as GDP growth
rates are negatively affected by the regional incidence of criminality.
The first empirical test of the social organisation theory was performed by Sampson and Groves (1989) using cross-sectional data
from 238 localities in Great Britain constructed from a 1982 national survey of 10,905 residents. The authors also provide evidence
based on 300 localities of 11,030 residents from a survey of 1984. Their (weighted-least-squares) regression estimates strongly
support social disorganisation theory as can be inferred in a simplified form. The most important factors which foster crime (measured
as the community crime rates according to victimisation surveys) are family disruption, urbanisation and peer groups. Significant
determinants of crime reduction are organisational participation and the density of friendship. Hughes and McDowall (1991) carried
out their estimations using cross-sectional time-series (or panel) data from 584 US cities for the years 1960, 1970 and 1980. Another
difference lies in the use of official (police) rather than victimisation data and the simultaneous evaluation of social disorganisation
and lifestyle/ routine activity theory (the latter will be discussed. It is striking that the disorganisation variables perform perfectly in
accordance with theory. Ethnic heterogeneity and the home-overcrowding variable have a positive significant impact on homicide,
robbery and burglary rates, whereas institutional control (degree of community supervision and attachment to or involvement in
traditional institutions) has the expected negative signs. Residential mobility estimates – with exception of homicide - also support the
theory. In another study Warner and Pierce (1993) test the social disorganisation theory by means of 1980 cross-sectional data from 60
Boston neighbourhoods using calls to the police as dependent variable. In addition to the "classical" variables of the theory measuring
low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity and residential mobility as well as family disruption and population density, Warner and
Pierce investigate the impact of interaction effects between crucial independent variables. The results are not as appealing as those
from the studies discussed before. Poverty performs in accordance with theory, but mobility has unexpected negative signs in the
regressions for assault and is found insignificant in the burglary estimations. Using data from the 55 largest U.S cities, Sampson and
Wooldredge (1986) reported that crime rates were negatively related to the population change from 1970 to 1980. As a general
conclusion based on studies assessing the interactions of crime and social cohesion, it can be recorded that "crime itself can lead to
simultaneous demographic 'collapse' and a weakening of the informal control structures and mobilization capacity of communities,
which in turn fuel[s] further crime" (Sampson 1995:203) Certain lifestyle aspects like going out in the evening and routine activities
which "involve greater or lesser amounts of time spend within the confines of the immediate household" (Messner and Blau
1987:1037) are supposed to have a significant impact on the incidence of crime by altering opportunities in the above mentioned
context. Lifestyle/ routine activity theory is not a pure micro or macro theory, thus it can also be tested at either level. More recent
tests at the macro-level have been performed by Messner and Blau (1987), Miethe, Hughes and McDowell (1991) and Roncek and
Maier (1991). Corresponding micro-evaluations are presented by Miethe, Stafford and Long (1987), Miethe, Stafford and Sloane
(1990), Osgood, Wilson,O'Malley, Bachman and Johnston (1996) and Tremblay and Tremblay (1998). Considering macro-studies
first, Messner and Blau (1987) investigate the influence of routine activities on 7 types of crime (homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft) using 1982 cross-sectional data from 124 U.S. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs).
Their routine activities variables are a nonhousehold index intended to represent the extent of leisure activities (measured by the
supply of sports and entertainment establishments) and thus the extent of the exposure to potential risks and a TV viewing index
(measured by the populations' mean TV viewing intensity). Apart from these variables, Messner and Blau control for poverty, race,
population size, gender and age. In the regression analysis both routine activity variables perform in accordance with the theory, i.e.
crime enhancing effects for the non-household index and crime reducing-effects for the TV viewing index are found. The coefficients
are always significant at the 5% level with only two exceptions - TV viewing does not significantly influence homicide and non-
household activities have no impact on auto theft.
Another macro study is the one by Miethe, Hughes and McDowall (1991), which has already been introduced in the previous section.
Variables that can be interpreted in the sense of lifestyle/ routine activity theory are: Higher unemployment and mean household size
increase guardianship, higher female labour-force participation reduces guardianship and more often exposes women to potential
dangers, more workers using public transportation services mean more potential targets in dangerous places, retail sales from eat/
drink establishments say something about the extent of public leisure activities, and median family income represents a measure of
attractiveness of targets. Considering estimated coefficients, only mean household size is in accordance with theory for all three crime
types. Public transportation performs well for homicide and robbery and is insignificant for burglary, whereas the opposite applies to
retail sales. Median family income is always insignificant. Finally, unemployment and female labour participation rather contradict the
lifestyle/ routine activity theory. In another paper, using Montreal police data from 1992 and 1993, Tremblay and Tremblay (1998)
support the lifestyle/ routine activity theory by showing that public transportation has an important effect on the incidence of
interracial violent offences. According to the authors, the explanation of this phenomenon is that public transportation brings together
social groups with unequal offending rates who usually are quite segregated. By these means a criminal potential emerges, which
otherwise would be absent. Tremblay and Tremblay (1998:295) conclude that "such findings suggest that patterns in the circulation of
people and property in social space [should] be added to the limited list of basic antecedent determinants of aggregate crime
distributions". The economist and noble prize winner of 1991 Gary S. Becker has added a very important and provoking theory to the
understanding of crime. According to Becker (1968:176) "a person commits an offense if the expected utility to him exceeds the
utility he could get by using his time and other resources at other activities". The innovative element of this assumption is that it can
dispense with special theories of anomie, psychological inadequacies or inheritance of special traits. Instead criminals are regarded as
normal persons who commit crimes not because their basic motivation differs from that of other persons, but because their benefits
and costs differ (Becker 1968:170). It should be mentioned, however, that Becker's major intention was not the development of a new
theory of delinquent behaviour but rather a guideline of how to minimise social losses from crime. The obvious prove for this claim is
the fact that Becker developed the microeconomic theory of crime in a footnote. Nevertheless, it was this by-product which attracted
the great attention of academia and influenced countless subsequent theoretical and empirical papers. According to Becker's theory,
individuals, form expectations about the utility that could be gained from committing a crime. The potential offender assesses the
potential loot, the probability of being arrested and convicted and the severity of the punishment which would follow the conviction. If
he4 comes to the conclusion, that the expected utility from committing the crime is higher than the known utility from using his time
otherwise (e.g. for legal work), the crime will be committed, otherwise the possibility will be rejected. From this calculus Becker
derives the so-called supply of offences function which is "relating the number of offenses by any person to his probability of
conviction, to his punishment if convicted and to other variables, such as the income available to him in legal and other illegal
activities, the frequency of nuisance arrests, and his willingness to commit an illegal act" (Becker 1968:177). The core of the theory is
that state authorities may influence individual crime decision, and thus the supply or incidence of crime by increasing the probability
of conviction (more police) or the severity of punishment (higher fines, longer terms of jail). Earlier statistical analyses of Indian
crime data are few and far between. A noteworthy contribution is Baldev Raj Nayar's Violence and Crime in India (Nayar 1975)." The
author focuses on temporal and regional patterns in crime rates and how these might be explained. Unfortunately, his statistical
analysis of the determinants of "murder and kidnapping" (pp. 121-122) produced little result, partly because it was based on a mere 18
observations (one for each state). Interestingly, "police strength" had a positive coefficient in this regression, but this finding has to be
interpreted with caution, given the possibility of reverse causation. As far as the summary of the major contributions on socio-
economic interactions and consequences of crime is concerned, the relatively low number of studies enables us to seek completeness.
According to the National Crime Record Bureau, in an hour, 273 cases were reported in country and 373 persons were arrested
different IPC sections in the year 2012 of these 2.84 cases pertained to rape& an average of 3.55 persons were arrested in connection
to the same per hour(mospi.nic.in).The Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) divides all the crimes into two categories.(i) Cognizable-
Sec.2(c) CrPC (i i) Non-cognizable Sec.2( l) CrPC
Cognizable Crimes:A cognizable offence or case is defined as the onc which an officer in-charge of a police station may investigate
without the order of a magistrate and affect arrest without warrant. The police has a direct responsibility to take immediate action on
the receipt of a complaint or of credible informationin such crimes, visit the scene of the crime. investigate the facts, apprehend the
offender and arraign him before a court of law having jurisdiction over the matter. Cognizable crimesa re broadly categoriseda s thosef
alling either under the 'Indian Penal Code (IPC)' or under the 'Special and Local Laws (SLL)'.
Non- Cognizable Offence:Non-Cognizable crimes are defined as those which can not be investigated by police without the order of a
Magistrate Police does not initiate investigation in non-cognizable crimes except with magisterial permission. First schedule of the
Cr.P.C. gives the classification of the offences of the IPC into cognizable & Non-cognizable categories. The various crimes that are
being registered and investigated by different law enforcement agencies are broadly grouped under the following categories for
Statistical Information System.
BROAD CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC ) IS:
i) Crimes Against Body: Murder, Its attempt, Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder, Kidnapping & Abduction. Hurt, Causing
Death by Negligence; Crimes Against Property: Dacoity, its preparation & assembly, Robbery, Burglary, Theft;
iii) Crimes Against Public Order: Riots, Arson:
iv) Economic Crimes: Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, Counterfeiting;
v) Crimes Against Women: Rape, Dowry Death, Cruelty by Husband and Relatives, Molestation, Sexual Harassment and Importation
of Girls;
vi) Crimes Against Children: Child Rape, Kidnapping & Abduction of Children, Procuration of minor girls, Selling/Buying of girls
for Prostitution, Abetment to Suicide, Exposure and Abandonment, Infanticide, Foeticide;
vii); Other IPC crimes.
Crimes Under the Special and Local Laws (SLL) is:
Arms Act, 1959;
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985;
Gambling Act , 1867;
Excise Act, 1944;
Prohibition Act;
Explosives & Explosives Substances Act. 1884 & 1908;
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956;
Railways Act, 1989;
Registration of Foreigners Act, 1930;
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955;
Indian Passport Act, 1967;
Essential Commodities Act 1955;
Terrorist& Disruptive Activities Act;
Antiquities & Art Treasures Act. 1972:
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961;
Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929
Indecent Representation of Women
Prohibition Act, 19 86;
Copyright Act , 1957;
Sati Prevention Act, 1987;
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989;
Forest Act , 1927;
Other crimes (not specified above) under Special and Local Laws including Cyber Laws under Information Technology Act
(IT),2000.
CAUSES AND TRENDS OF IPC AND SLL CRIMES IN INDIA

The analysis of the chart gives a clear indication as to that the Crime (IPC and SLL) shows a varied trend over the past more than
decade. But a deeper insight into the recent past clearly tell us that though there has been a decline in the number of total All-India
Crimes but the trend of IPC Crimes has increased gradually in the time period from 2001 to 2009. From then on, there has been a
rapid increase in the IPC crimes in India which is a matter of concern as IPC crimes relate to the crimes like murder, dacoity etc.
which can be either violent or non-violent in nature.
Chart 1.1 :Dynamics of Total IPC Crime and SLL Crime in India:
Source: Crime in India,NCRB,(various years
Table 1.1:Trend of Components of Total All India IPC Crime

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2001 36202 31523 3367 16075 22487 6154 1614 19901 101182 252803 76222 14798 44727 1683 10534 271487 6851 34124 9746 49170 114 57182 701362 1769308
2002 35290 30380 3624 16373 21850 6101 1841 18764 96461 247462 68945 14027 46271 1522 11820 265025 6822 33943 10155 49237 76 64044 730297 1780330
2003 32716 25942 4029 15847 19992 5303 2302 17512 92827 245237 57334 13432 47478 2055 9365 261444 6208 32939 12325 50703 46 60672 700412 1716120
2004 33608 27890 3935 18233 23327 5311 2340 18458 92490 273045 59971 14176 51939 1529 8637 276868 7026 34567 10001 58121 89 69423 741031 1832015
2005 32719 28031 3578 18359 22832 5141 2834 17673 90108 273111 56235 13572 53625 2383 8451 270861 6787 34175 9984 58319 149 71698 741977 1822602
2006 32481 27230 3535 19348 23991 4747 3129 18456 91666 274354 56641 13636 58076 2169 8480 264748 7618 36617 9966 63128 67 78513 779697 1878293
2007 32318 27401 3644 20737 27561 4579 3205 19136 91218 285043 59915 15531 65326 2204 9024 273067 8093 38734 10950 75930 61 86790 829206 1989673
2008 32766 28598 3863 21467 30261 4530 3217 20522 93742 316761 66018 16487 66579 2991 9249 284969 8172 40413 12214 81344 67 92186 856963 2093379
2009 32369 29038 3930 21397 33860 4586 2850 22409 92070 324195 62942 16326 72718 2935 8736 279214 8383 38711 11009 89546 48 98532 865541 2121345
2010 33335 29421 3782 22172 38440 4358 2615 23393 90179 330312 67571 16678 78999 2589 8508 289022 8391 40613 9961 94041 36 106343 924072 2224831
2011 34305 31385 3707 24206 44664 4285 2895 24700 92504 340800 68500 17457 87656 2307 9064 302847 8618 42968 8570 99135 80 108890 966032 2325575
2012 34434 35138 3620 24923 47592 4314 3099 27343 92892 337407 74633 17901 94203 2351 11836 332324 8233 45351 9173 106527 59 107591 966244 2387188
Source:Crime Reports of India,NCRB,(various years)
Table 1.2:Trend of Components of Total All India SLL Crime :

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
2001 59960 24377 151497 116247 509077 4529 8796 64373 1438 691 390 4279 0 40 3222 85 1052 2868 0 14780 5548 2601981 3575230
2002 64383 25279 175001 125062 488189 4634 6598 55697 1754 1065 693 3593 65 77 2816 113 2508 4035 0 12570 4710 2767356 3746198
2003 72804 27913 175298 137513 467216 3864 5510 40861 1315 671 555 4201 85 37 2684 63 1043 5378 0 9388 3707 2818588 3778694
2004 74482 27608 190682 147854 378919 4248 5748 21444 1194 375 807 4871 66 85 3592 93 1378 6290 0 10066 3818 3313146 4196766
2005 74270 29421 189523 150604 326190 4254 5908 224 1951 453 1120 7216 54 68 3204 122 2917 6846 1 9780 4168 2385441 3203735
2006 76562 31044 173930 146973 315883 4067 4541 189 2133 454 940 8319 0 31 4504 99 1562 7188 0 9813 4347 2431588 3224167
2007 74066 29831 184972 143311 344356 4019 3568 186 2117 211 984 7965 0 49 5623 96 1200 6628 0 10923 4682 2918947 3743734
2008 77016 30645 156247 161691 361940 4067 2660 145 1524 285 1045 9100 0 34 5555 104 1025 6036 1 12347 5082 3008176 3844725
2009 80109 29401 162218 186322 387029 4419 2474 175 1257 170 1249 7622 0 36 5650 5 845 6049 0 11859 4802 3662181 4553872
2010 75550 29576 157958 177081 385670 4021 2499 148 1204 148 937 7928 0 57 5182 60 895 7889 0 11456 6004 3651654 4525917
2011 62329 25785 154335 144614 399257 3669 2436 156 1284 74 869 8654 0 71 6619 113 453 6976 0 12496 7448 3089516 3927154
2012 55376 29247 140302 160528 416749 4027 2563 144 1519 64 953 6755 0 59 9038 169 141 6151 0 13887 6467 2800232 3654371
Chart 1.2 :Dynamics of Total IPC Crime(all components) and SLL Crime(all components) in India
No. of crime types:IPC & SLL
YEAR
The following tables gives the detailed analysis of the descriptive statistics related to IPC Crime and SLL crime in India over the 12
year period of 2001 to 2012.
Table 1.3:Descriptive Statistics Related to IPC Crimes

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
murder 12 32318 36202 3.35E4 1261.947
Attempt to Commit Murder 12 25942 35138 2.93E4 2483.904
C H Not amounting to Murder 12 3367 4029 3717.83 194.048
Rape 12 15847 24923 1.99E4 3064.121
Kidnapping & Abduction 12 19992 47592 2.97E4 9394.791
Dacoity 12 4285 6154 4950.75 657.181
Preparation & Assembly for Dacoity 12 1614 3217 2661.75 534.193
Robbery 12 17512 27343 2.07E4 3112.341
Burglary 12 90108 101182 9.31E4 3045.327
Theft 12 245237 340800 2.92E5 36108.864
Riots 12 56235 76222 6.46E4 6828.362
Criminal Breach of Trust 12 13432 17901 1.53E4 1601.056
Cheating 12 44727 94203 6.40E4 16591.733
Counterfeiting 12 1522 2991 2226.50 483.900
Arson 12 8451 11836 9475.33 1237.754
Hurt/Grevious Hurt 12 261444 332324 2.81E5 19931.259
Dowry Deaths 12 6208 8618 7600.17 816.908
Assault on women with intent to outrage her modesty 12 32939 45351 3.78E4 4013.200
Insult to Modesty of Women 12 8570 12325 1.03E4 1115.133
Cruelty by Husband or his Relatives 12 49170 106527 7.29E4 20814.820
Importation of girls from Foreign Country 12 36 149 74.33 31.457
Causing death by negligence 12 57182 108890 8.35E4 19101.811
Other IPC Crimes 12 700412 966244 8.17E5 98776.348
Total IPC Crimes 12 1716120 2387188 2.00E6 230864.624
Table 1.4 Descriptive Statistics Related to SLL Crimes
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Arms Act, 1959 12 55376 80109 7.06E4 7914.755

NDPS ACT 12 24377 31044 2.83E4 2170.325
Gambling Act 12 140302 190682 1.68E5 16238.310
Excise Act 12 116247 186322 1.50E5 19782.365
Prohibition Act 12 315883 509077 3.98E5 62032.838
Explosives Substances Act 1908 12 3669 4634 4151.50 277.410
Immoral Traffic (P) Act, 1956 12 2436 8796 4441.75 2083.555
Indian Railways Act, 1989 12 144 64373 1.53E4 24424.871
Registration of Foreigners Act 12 1194 2133 1557.50 348.449
Protection of Civil Rights Act 12 64 1065 388.42 299.941
Indian Passport Act 12 390 1249 878.50 239.336
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 12 3593 9100 6708.58 1943.074
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act 12 0 85 22.50 33.908
Antiquities & Art Treasures Act 12 31 85 53.67 18.515
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 12 2684 9038 4807.42 1867.970
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 12 5 169 93.50 39.746
Indecent Rep. of Women (P) Act 12 141 2917 1251.58 784.247
Copyright Act, 1957 12 2868 7889 6027.83 1388.301
Commission of Sati (P) Act, 1987 12 0 1 .17 .389
SC/ST (Prev.of Attrocities) Act 12 9388 14780 1.16E4 1704.012
Forest Act, 1927 12 3707 7448 5065.25 1120.908
Other SLL Crimes 12 2385441 3662181 2.95E6 419595.429
Total SLL Crimes 12 3203735 4553872 3.83E6 429009.236
In order to have a deep rooted analysis of the impact of the macro economic variables on total crime committed against children in
India, various regression models were run and observations made therein are being explained in ensuing paragraphs. In the first model
the Total All India IPC and SLL Crime was taken as the dependent variable and the GDP(per capita), Urban population as percent of
total population, and unemployment rate were the predictors(Regression Model I).
TOTAL IPC and SLL CRIMES(India) = ∝o + ∝1 GDP + ∝3 URBANPOP + ∝4 UNEMPRATE + Ut … 1.1
Model Summary
Change Statistics
Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a
1 .859 .738 .640 336475.981 .738 7.524 3 8 .010
a. Predictors: (Constant), UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, URBAN POPULATION AS % OF TOTAL, GDP PER CAPITA PPP
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.556E12 3 8.519E11 7.524 .010a
Residual 9.057E11 8 1.132E11
Total 3.461E12 11
a. Predictors: (Constant), UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, URBAN POPULATION AS % OF TOTAL, GDP PER CAPITA PPP
b. Dependent Variable: Total Crimes (IPC+SLL)
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -6.525E6 2.988E6 -2.184 .061
URBAN POPULATION AS % OF TOTAL 443307.066 120898.580 .950 3.667 .006
GDP PER CAPITA PPP -787.852 303.859 -.701 -2.593 .032
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 180746.661 80883.189 .477 2.235 .056
a. Dependent Variable: Total Crimes (IPC+SLL)
The results so obtained clarified that 64 per cent of the variations in the dependent variable are explained by the three predictor
variables. But it is clear from the table of coefficients that only urban population as per cent of total population and GDP per capita
PPP are significantly important variables having an impact on Total All India Crime(IPC +SLL).
Measures which account for urbanity, like population density, often turn out to have a significant positive effect on crime. But it is not
obvious why urbanity per se should directly affect crime. Glaeser and Sacerdote (1996) report that 27 per cent of the urban crime
effect (i.e. the difference between rural and urban crime rates) in the United States is due to higher pecuniary benefits for crime in
cities, 20 per cent is explained by lower arrest probabilities and lower probabilities of recognition, and the remaining 45-60 per cent of
the effect can be related to observable characteristics of individuals in cities. Thus, according to Glaeser and Sacerdote(1999) the
whole urban crime effect can be explained by other variables than by urbanity itself. However, Roncek (1981) provides an explanation
of how urbanity (i.e. high population density) may directly affect crime. If the population density increases, the number of residents
who do not know each other but share common living space becomes higher, and thus, residents are less able to recognise their
neighbours, to be concerned about them or to engage in guardianship behaviours (Roncek 1981:88). There also exists evidence for a
reciprocal relationship between crime and urbanity (see the papers of Burnell 1988, Bursik 1986, Cullen and Levitt 1999, Frey 1979,
Grubb 1982, Liska and Bellair 1995 and Sampson and Wooldredge,1986). The causal influence of "crime" is sequentially tested for
the crime categories murder, assault, robbery, total theft, theft of motor vehicles and drug offences. For reasons of potential
multicollinearity among several types of crime we have only used one crime category per regression, instead of including all of them
in one single regression. According to the studies higher crime rates are an important cause of (white) population flight from central
cities in the U.S. the following linear regression model was used to analyse the impact of urbanity on total crime-IPC and SLL(various
components) in India by the author of the research paper as well:
TOTAL CRIME IPC(VARIOUS TYPE)= ∝o + ∝1 URBANPOPt + Ut … 1.2
Further to know the impact of various types of crime composing the ‘Total All-India IPC’, the regression was run for ‘Total All-India
IPC all types’ respectively with respect to urban population as percent of total population. It was observed that the urban population
as percent of total population seemed to have a significant impact on the following types of IPC Crimes – rape, kidnapping &
abduction, dacoity, preparation of dacoity, robbery, theft, criminal breach of trust, cheating, counterfeiting, hurt/ grievious hurt,
dowry deaths, assault on women with intent to outrage her modesty, causing death by negligence, other IPC crimes and cruelty by
husband his relatives. Whereas the IPC crimes like murder, attempt to commit murder, C H not amounting to murder, burglary, riots,
arson, importation of girls from foreign country and insult to modesty of women turned out to be statistically insignificant.
TOTAL CRIME SLL(VARIOUS TYPE)= ∝o + ∝1 URBANPOPt + Ut … 1.3
So far as results of regression of various types of crime composing the ‘Total All-India SLL’, the regression was run with ‘Total All-
India SLL-all types’ respectively with respect to urban population as percent of total population is concerned, it was observed that
excise Act, Explosives Act, Immoral Traffic Act, Indian Railway Act, Protection of Civil Rights Act, Indian Passport Act ,
Essential commodity Act, Terrorism and Disruption Act, Dowry Prohibition Act, Indecent Representation of Women Act, Copyright
Act and Forest Act were statistically significant. Whereas, the remaining i.e., Arms Act, NDPS Act, Gambling Act, Prohibition Act
and Registration of Foreigners Act were statistically insignificant.
A higher GDP per capita means a higher number of lucrative targets. There is indication that higher wealth (measured by GDP p.c.)
implies a higher propensity to commit property crimes, though the estimated coefficient becomes insignificant after including more
specific labour market variables and the net reproduction rate. Keeping this in mind, the author regressed various types of crime
composing the ‘Total All-India IPC’, with ‘GDP per capita PPP’ respectively as per the equation no.1.4
TOTAL CRIME IPC (VARIOUS TYPE)= ∝o + ∝1 GDPt + Ut … 1.4
The results indicated that – rape, kidnapping & abduction, dacoity, robbery, theft, criminal breach of trust, cheating, hurt/ grievous
hurt, assault on women with intent to outrage her modesty, causing death by negligence, other IPC crimes and cruelty by husband his
relatives were statistically significant; whereas
IPC crimes like murder, attempt to commit murder, C H not amounting to murder, preparation or assembling for murder, riots, arson,
dowry deaths, importation of girls from foreign country and insult to modesty of women turned out to be statistically insignificant.
TOTAL CRIME SLL (VARIOUS TYPE)= ∝o + ∝1 GDPt + Ut … 1.5
Ironically, all the types of SLL crimes turned out to be statistically insignificant when each was regressed against the GDP per capita
PPP.
GDP(per Capita) was observed to be significantly impacting only the ‘Total All-India Crime –IPC’ but not any of the types of SLL
crime at all-India level.
First, wealth (GDP p.c.) varies positively with crime against property and negatively with intentional homicides. Drug abuse very
likely is a problem of wealthy societies. It becomes very clear that underemployment is a crucial reason behind crime in Europe.
Taking a clue from the above mentioned study, a regression was run with unemployment rate as the independent variable and various
components of type of crime against children as the dependent variable respectively.
All the types of IPC crimes and SLL crimes were regressed respectively with unemployment rate but only kidnapping & abduction,
Robbery and Hurt/Grievous Hurt(all IPC crime types), turned out to be statistically significant.
TOTAL CRIME IPC (VARIOUS TYPE)= ∝o + ∝1 UNEMPt + Ut … 1.5
TOTAL CRIME SLL (VARIOUS TYPE)= ∝o + ∝1 UNEMPt + Ut … 1.6
POLICY MEASURES AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Results from our empirical analysis confirms that GDP per capita PPP, Urban Population as percent of total population and
unemployment rate are significantly affecting the IPC-SLL crime in India. Since it has been observed that urban population as percent
of total population is contributing significantly to crimes under the IPC crimes category, i.e., mostly violent crimes, the legal
provisions and their strict enforcement needs to be the call of the hour. Severe and timely punishment could act as a deterrant to the
increasing trend of crime against the society. Policy intervention is also sought to provide for better infrastructural and other facilities
in rural areas so that that segment of the society does not feel the need to look out for employment avenues, income generation sources
and other basic amenities to the urban areas. This seems to be further analysed at district level, using not only secondary information
which has a tendency to be under-reporting the numbers as social pressures could be restricting the affected to report the matter in the
police stations, but also primary surveys conducted systematically at repeated intervals of time. Not only this, another aspect ought to
be taken into consideration so far as future research and policy implications are concerned-the developmental perspective of crime.
The developmental perspective points to the fact that "crime does not appear to be a permanent trait of the individual"! Crime can
rather be split up in three clearly distinguishable phases: initiation, maintenance, and termination. This view is consistent with the
generally observed incidence of crime in the life course, where offenders start their criminal conduct around the ages of 12 or 13,
rapidly increasing their involvement to a peak around the ages of 16 or 17, and then terminating delinquency by the mid 20s
(Thornberry 1996:200). In order to account for the developmental aspect of crime longitudinal (i.e. panel) data is needed which should
be made available in a standardized manner by reliable government sources on all types of crime.
REFERENCES
1. Paul Tappan,( 1960) Crime, Justice and Correction , New York: McGraw Hill, p. 10.
2. Becker (1968): ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 76, p. 169
3. International Encyclopedia of the Social Science,( 1972) Vol. 3&4, (New York: The Mac Millan Company and The Free
Press,), p. 476.
4. Isaac Ehrlich (1973): ‘Crime, Punishment and the Market for Offences’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.10,
No.1.Winter, pp. 43-67
5. Entorf and Spengler(2000): ‘Socioeconomic and demographic factors of crime in Germany: Evidence from panel data of the
German states’, International Review of Law and Economics, Volume 20, Issue 1,March, pp: 75-106
6. Nayar, Baldev Raj(1975): Violence and Crime in India, MacMillan Co. of India.
7. Frey, Wiliam H. (1979), ‘Central City White Flight: Racial and Nonracial Causes,’ American Sociological Review, Vol.44,
June, pp. 425–448
8. Dennis W. Roncek, Ralph Bell and Jeffrey M. A. Francik(1981): Housing Projects and Crime: Testing a Proximity Hypothesis,
Social Problems, Vol.29, No.2, December, pp.151-166.
9. Grubb, W. Norton (1982), ‘The Flight to the Suburbs of Population and Employment, 1960–70,’ Journal of Urban Economics,
Vol.11,May, pp.348–367.
10. Sen (1985): Well-being Agency and Freedom- the Dewey lectures 1984, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.82, no.4, April, pp.
169-221.
11. Bursik (1989):’ Ecological Stability and the Dynamics of Delinquency’, Communities and Crime, edited by A.J.Reiss Jr. and
M.Tonry,Published by: The University of Chicago Press.
12. Miethe,Terence D., Stafford, Mark, C., and Long, Scott J. (1987) : ‘Social Differentiation I Criminal Victimization-A Test of
Routine Activities/Lifestyle Theories’, American Sociological Review, Vol.52, pp.182-194.
13. Messner, S., and J. Blau (1987): ‘Routine Leisure Activities and Rates of Crime: A Macro-level Analysis.’ Social Forces
Vol.65, pp.1035-1052.
14. Burnell, James D(1988): ‘Crime and Racial Composition in Contiguous Communities as Negative Externalities: Prejudiced
Household's Evaluation of Crime Rate and Segregation Nearby Reduces Housing Values and Tax Revenues, American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Volume 47, Issue 2, pages 177–193, April 1988
15. Sampson, Robert J., and W. Byron Groves(1989): ‘Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory’,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, no. 4, pp.774-802. Reprinted in Frances Cullen and Velmer Burton, eds.,
Contemporary Criminological Theory. Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1994.
16. Miethe, T.D., M.C. Stafford & D. Sloane (1990):’Lifestyle Changes and Risks of Criminal Victimization’, Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, vol.6, pp.357-376.
17. Miethe, T.D., M. Hughes & D. McDowall (1991): ‘Social Change and Crime Rates: An Evaluation of Alternative Theoretical
Approaches’. Social Forces, Vol.70, pp. 165-185.
18. Roncek, D.W. & P.A. Maier (1991): ‘Bars, Blocks, and Crime Revisited: Linking the Theory of Routine Activities to the
Empiricism of' Hot Spots', Criminology, Vol. 29, pp. 725-753.
19. Warner, B.D. & G.L. Pierce (1993): ‘Reexamining Social Disorganization Theory Using Calls to the Police as a Measure of
Crime’, Criminology, Vol.31, pp.493-517.
20. Liska, A.E. & P.E. Bellair (1995): ‘Violent-Crime Rates and Racial Composition: Convergence Over Time" American Journal
of Sociology, Vol.101, pp. 578-610.
21. Sampson, R.J. (1995): The Community, J.Q Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime, 193-216. Institute for Contemporary
Studies: ICS Press Sacerdote (1996).
22. Osgood, D.W., J.K. Wilson, P.M. O'Malley, J.G. Bachman & L.D. Johnston (1996): ‘Routine Activities and Individual
Deviant Behavior’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, pp.625-655
23. Thornberry, T.P. (1996): ‘Empirical Support for Interactional Theory: A Review of the Literature’, In J.D. Hawkins (Ed.),
Delinquency and Crime, pp.198-235,Tremblay and Tremblay.
24. Cullen, J.B. & S.D. Levitt (1999), ‘Crime, Urban Flight, and the Consequences for Cities’, Review of Economics and Statistics,
Vol.81, pp.159-169.
25. Entorf, Horst & Spengler, Hannes, (2000): ‘Development and validation of scientific indicators of the relationship between
criminality, social cohesion and economic performance.’ ZEW-Dokumentation, No. 00-05.
26. Siddhanta S, Nandy D and Agnihotri S. B.( 2003): ‘Sex Ratio and 'Prosperity Effect', What Do NSSO Data Reveal?’ Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol.38 (41), pp. 4381.
27. Soares, Rodrigo. (2004): ‘Development, Crime and Punishment: Accounting for the International Differences in Crime Rates.’
Journal of Development Economics, Vol.73, (1), pp. 155-184.
28. M. Jayamala,( 2008 ):Trends and Spatial Patterns of Crime in India – A Case Study of a District in India, Language in India
www.languageinindia.com
29. Robitaille, Marie-Claire (2013): ‘Determinants of Stated Son Preference in India: Are Men and Women Different?’ The
Journal of Development Studies, Vol.49 (5), pp. 1-13.
30. Joshi, Vimal (2013): Juvenile justice in India: A Study of Legislative Policies, Judicial Trends and Social Perception,
http://hdl.handle.net/10603/7809.
31. NCRB, (1994,various years),Crime report in India,National Crime Record Bureau, Crime in India, New Delhi,
32. Edward L. Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote(1999):’Why is There More Crime in Cities?’, Journal of Political Economy,Vol. 107,
No. S6, December, (pp. S225-S258)

487 1092 1 PB PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

487 1092 1 PB PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International Journal Of Scientific Research And Education

||Volume||2||Issue||10||Pages-2166-2190||October-2014|| ISSN (e): 2321-7545

An Economic Analysis of IPC Crimes And SLL Crimes In India

CAUSES AND TRENDS OF IPC AND SLL CRIMES IN INDIA

Table 1.1:Trend of Components of Total All India IPC Crime

Table 1.2:Trend of Components of Total All India SLL Crime :

Source:Crime Reports of India,NCRB,(various years)

Table 1.3:Descriptive Statistics Related to IPC Crimes

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Arms Act, 1959 12 55376 80109 7.06E4 7914.755

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen