No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The effects of absent fathers on adolescent criminal activity: an economic approach
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 October 2021
Abstract
Simple ordinary least squares estimates indicate that absent fathers boost probabilities of adolescent criminal behavior by 16–38%, but those numbers likely are biased by unobserved heterogeneity. This paper first presents an economic model explaining that unobserved heterogeneity. Then turning to empirics, fixed effects, which attempt to address that bias, suggest that absent fathers reduce certain types of adolescent crime, while lagged-dependent variable models suggest the opposite. Those conflicting conclusions are resolved by an approach that combines those two estimators using an orthogonal reparameterization approach, with model parameters calculated using a Bayesian algorithm. The main finding is that absent fathers do not appear to directly affect adolescent criminal activity. Rather, families with absent fathers possess traits that appear to correlate with increased adolescent criminal behaviors.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Paper
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain 2021
References
Ahn, S. and Schmidt, P. (1995) Efficient estimation of models for dynamic panel data. Journal of Econometrics 68, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T. and Hsiao, C. (1981) Estimation of dynamic models with error components. Journal of the American Statistical Association 76, 598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, J. and Pischke, J.-S. (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arellano, M. and Bond, S. (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies 58, 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arellano, M. and Honore, B. (2001) Panel data models: some recent developments. In Heckman, J. and Leamer, E. (eds.) Handbook of Econometrics, 5, London: Elsevier, pp. 3229–3296.Google Scholar
Becker, G. (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blundell, R. and Bond, S. (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 87, 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. and Carrano, J. (2006) The father–child relationship, parenting styles, and adolescent risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Issues 27, 850–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A. and Trivedi, P. (2005) Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, A., Trivedi, P., Milne, F. and Piggott, J. (1988) A microeconometric model of the demand for health care and health insurance in Australia. Review of Economic Studies 55, 85–106.Google Scholar
Demuth, S. and Brown, S. (2004) Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: the significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41, 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goncy, E. and van Dulmen, M. (2010) Fathers do make a difference: parental involvement and adolescent alcohol use. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men As Fathers 8, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, C. and McLanahan, S. (2004) Father absence and youth incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence 14, 369–397.Google Scholar
Hofferth, S. (2011) Do nonresidential fathers’ financial support and contact improve children's health?. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 32, 280–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W. and Rosen, H. (1988) Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica 56, 1371–1395.Google Scholar
Hsiao, C., Pesaran, M. and Tahmiscioglu, A. (2002) Maximum likelihood estimation of fixed effects dynamic panel data models covering short time periods. Journal of Econometrics 109, 107–150.Google Scholar
Lancaster, T. (2002) Orthogonal parameters and panel data. Review of Economic Studies 69, 647–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, K., Leiber, M., Featherstone, R. and Monserud, M. (2007) Reassessing the family-delinquency association: do family type, family processes, and economic factors make a difference? Journal of Criminal Justice 35, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maume, D. (2011) Reconsidering the temporal increase in fathers’ time with children. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 32, 411–423.Google Scholar
Nickell, S. (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 1399–1416.Google Scholar
Pickup, M., Gustafson, P., Cubranic, D. and Evans, G. (2017) OrthoPanels: an R package for estimating a dynamic panel model with fixed effects using the orthogonal reparameterization approach. The R Journal 9, 60–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, L. and King, R. (2015) Absent fathers or absent variables? A new look at paternal incarceration and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52, 414–443.Google Scholar
Rebellon, C. (2002) Reconsidering the broken homes/delinquency relationship and exploring its mediating mechanism. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal 40, 103–136.Google Scholar
Reich, N. (2014) Fathers’ childcare: the differences between participation and amount of time. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 35, 190–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, C., Steinberg, L., Frick, P. and Cauffman, E. (2018) The differential influence of absent and harsh fathers on juvenile delinquency. Journal of Adolescence 62, 9–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Wong, S. (2017) The effects of single-mother and single-father families on youth crime: examining five gender-related hypotheses. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 50, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar