Economic effects of anti-crime security measures - Revision history

Albert at 23:06, 19 January 2018

2018-01-19T23:06:08Z

John P: /* Benefits of security */

2013-10-30T11:18:56Z

Benefits of security

John P: /* Indirect (secondary) costs of security */

2013-10-30T11:17:45Z

Indirect (secondary) costs of security

John P: /* Benefits of security */

2013-10-30T11:12:50Z

Benefits of security

John P: /* Indirect (secondary) costs of security */

2013-10-30T10:57:52Z

Indirect (secondary) costs of security

John P: /* Indirect (secondary) benefits of security */

2013-10-30T10:56:21Z

Indirect (secondary) benefits of security

John P: /* Indirect (secondary) benefits of security */

2013-10-30T10:55:39Z

Indirect (secondary) benefits of security

John P: /* Direct (primary) benefits of security */

2013-10-30T10:47:06Z

Direct (primary) benefits of security

John P: /* Direct (primary) costs of security */

2013-10-30T10:46:39Z

Direct (primary) costs of security

John P: /* Indirect (secondary) costs of security */

2013-10-30T10:46:13Z

Indirect (secondary) costs of security

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 ==Related subjects==
 *[[Economic|Economic main page]]
-* [[belongs to::Economic impact]]
+* [[Economic impact]]
 **[[Economic impact of urban planning]]
 **[[Economic impact of security threats]]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 *''<math>C_s</math>'' are the estimated cost of the security measure (annually)
-According to the economist Brück (2004)<ref name="ftn47"> Brück (2004): Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. In: OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, the benefits of security measures that mitigate crime are even harder to determine than the costs. However, in the view of an European research group<ref>Van Dijk, J. et al (2007): The Burden of Crime in the EU. Research Report: A Comparative Analysis of the European Survey of Crime and Safety (EU ICS) 2005. European Union, p.23.</ref>", the universal growth in the possession and use of private security measures by households and companies over the past few decades is a significant factor inhibiting crime". The benefits of security include direct effects (such as less property damage, loss of lives, health and physical endowments) and of indirect effects on the economy.
+According to the economist Brück (2004)<ref name="ftn47"> Brück (2004): Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. In: OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, the benefits of security measures that mitigate crime are even harder to determine than the costs. However, in the view of an European research group<ref>Van Dijk, J. ''et al'' (2007): The Burden of Crime in the EU. Research Report: A Comparative Analysis of the European Survey of Crime and Safety (EU ICS) 2005. European Union, p.23.</ref>", the universal growth in the possession and use of private security measures by households and companies over the past few decades is a significant factor inhibiting crime". The benefits of security include direct effects (such as less property damage, loss of lives, health and physical endowments) and of indirect effects on the economy.
 ===Direct (primary) benefits of security===

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 * Tighter security, for example, may imply longer delivery times and disruption of global supply chains and of finely-tuned just-in-time delivery systems<ref name="ftn44"> Stevens (2004): The emerging Security Economy: An Introduction. Published in: OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>.
 * According to OECD<ref name=OECD></ref> simulations, measures introduced in the wake of September 11 could increase trading costs by 1 percent, leading to global welfare losses of around USD 75 billion per year. According to Brück, a one-day delay in border controls has been estimated to generate costs of 0.5 percent of the value of the goods (Hummels, 2001).
-* A number of researchers have concerns that security measures just [[Crime displacement|displace crime]] to those that are less protected. Yet, according to the British Home security deparment<ref>Pease, K. & M. Gill (2011): Home security and place design: some evidence and its policy implications.</ref>"the weight of evidence on displacement (and there are various types) is that it is at worst only partial".
+* A number of researchers have concerns that security measures just [[Crime displacement|displace crime]] to those that are less protected. Yet, according to the British Home security department<ref>Pease, K. & M. Gill (2011): Home security and place design: some evidence and its policy implications.</ref>"the weight of evidence on displacement (and there are various types) is that it is at worst only partial".
-* Hobijn (2001)<ref name="ftn45"> Hummels, D. (2001): Time as a Trade Barrier. Mimeo, Department of Economic, Purdue University, West Lafayette/Indiana. In: Brück (2004). Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. Published in OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, nevertheless, claims that on the long term neither private nor public spending on security measures have a major impact on the economy (although also the indirect costs are very difficult to predict/measure)<ref name="ftn46"> Brück (2004), warns to be a bit careful with this conclusion, since the future costs of security spendings are difficult to predict in general.</ref>.
+* Hobijn (2001)<ref name="ftn45">Hobijn, B. (2002): What Will Homeland Security Cost?, Economic Policy Review, 8(2), pp. 21-33. In: Brück (2004). Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. p.111. Published in OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, nevertheless, claims that on the long term neither private nor public spending on security measures have a major impact on the economy (although also the indirect costs are very difficult to predict/measure)<ref name="ftn46"> The economist Brück (2004), warns to be a bit careful with this conclusion, since the future costs of security spendings are difficult to predict in general.</ref>.
 ==Benefits of security==

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 *''<math>C_s</math>'' are the estimated cost of the security measure (annually)
-According to Brück (2004)<ref name="ftn47"> Brück (2004). Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. In: OECD (2004). ''The Security Economy''. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, the benefits of security measures that mitigate crime are even harder to determine than the costs. However, in the view of an European research group<ref>Van Dijk, J. et al (2007). the Burden of Crime in the EU. Research Report: A Comparative Analysis of the European Survey of Crime and Safety (EU ICS) 2005. European Union, p.23.</ref>", the universal growth in the possession and use of private security measures by households and companies over the past few decades is a significant factor inhibiting crime". The benefits of security include direct effects (such as less property damage, loss of lives, health and physical endowments) and of indirect effects on the economy.
+According to the economist Brück (2004)<ref name="ftn47"> Brück (2004): Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. In: OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, the benefits of security measures that mitigate crime are even harder to determine than the costs. However, in the view of an European research group<ref>Van Dijk, J. et al (2007): The Burden of Crime in the EU. Research Report: A Comparative Analysis of the European Survey of Crime and Safety (EU ICS) 2005. European Union, p.23.</ref>", the universal growth in the possession and use of private security measures by households and companies over the past few decades is a significant factor inhibiting crime". The benefits of security include direct effects (such as less property damage, loss of lives, health and physical endowments) and of indirect effects on the economy.
 ===Direct (primary) benefits of security===

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 * According to OECD<ref name=OECD></ref> simulations, measures introduced in the wake of September 11 could increase trading costs by 1 percent, leading to global welfare losses of around USD 75 billion per year. According to Brück, a one-day delay in border controls has been estimated to generate costs of 0.5 percent of the value of the goods (Hummels, 2001).
 * A number of researchers have concerns that security measures just [[Crime displacement|displace crime]] to those that are less protected. Yet, according to the British Home security deparment<ref>Pease, K. & M. Gill (2011): Home security and place design: some evidence and its policy implications.</ref>"the weight of evidence on displacement (and there are various types) is that it is at worst only partial".
-* Hobijn (2001)<ref name="ftn45"> Hummels, D. (2001): Time as a Trade Barrier. Mimeo, Department of Economic, Purdue University, West Lafayette/Indiana. In: Brück (2004). Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. Published in OECD (2004). ''The Security Economy''. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, nevertheless, claims that on the long term neither private nor public spending on security measures have a major impact on the economy (although also the indirect costs are very difficult to predict/measure)<ref name="ftn46"> Brück (2004), warns to be a bit careful with this conclusion, since the future costs of security spendings are difficult to predict in general.</ref>.
+* Hobijn (2001)<ref name="ftn45"> Hummels, D. (2001): Time as a Trade Barrier. Mimeo, Department of Economic, Purdue University, West Lafayette/Indiana. In: Brück (2004). Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. Published in OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, nevertheless, claims that on the long term neither private nor public spending on security measures have a major impact on the economy (although also the indirect costs are very difficult to predict/measure)<ref name="ftn46"> Brück (2004), warns to be a bit careful with this conclusion, since the future costs of security spendings are difficult to predict in general.</ref>.
 ==Benefits of security==

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 * A reduction in the carbon cost of crime<ref> Criminologist Ken Pease, has revealed the significance of crime on English and Welsh CO² output; an estimated total of 11.6 million tonnes - that's 2% of the UKs' total CO² emissions. See: Ken Pease (2009): The Carbon Cost of Crime and Its Implications. Online: http://www.securedbydesign.com/professionals/pdfs/The-Carbon-Cost-of-Crime.pdf</ref>
 * A reduction in costs of securing void areas
-* Less people who feel forced to move to another home<ref>"Crime levels and bad neighbours are the reason for almost ten million Britons moving home in the last five years" Source: Abbey National Survey (2007) In: .</ref>
+* Less people who feel forced to move to another home<ref>"Crime levels and bad neighbours are the reason for almost ten million Britons moving home in the last five years" Source: Abbey National Survey (2007) In: Ken Pease (2009): The Carbon Cost of Crime and Its Implications. Online: http://www.securedbydesign.com/professionals/pdfs/The-Carbon-Cost-of-Crime.pdf.</ref>
 ==Related subjects==

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 Improvements in security have  similar [[Secondary economic impact|indirect (secondary) economic effect]] as an improvement in urban environment, thereby raising the real wealth of households, companies and public authorities in the affected area. Specific examples of indirect effects are:
 * A reduction in insurance premiums
-* The [[Opportunity cost|opportunity cost]]<ref>Opportunity cost can be defined as any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative foregone (not chosen)</ref>of police presence
+* The [[Opportunity cost|opportunity cost]]<ref>Opportunity cost can be defined as any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative foregone (not chosen).</ref>of police presence
 * An increase in tourist income and tourist employment
 * A decrease in long-term health costs (due to the reduction in victim-hood and an increase in psychological well-being)
-* A reduction in the carbon cost of crime<ref> Criminologist Ken Pease, has revealed the significance of crime on English and Welsh CO² output; an estimated total of 11.6 million tonnes - that's 2% of the UKs' total CO² emissions. See: Ken Pease (2009). The Carbon Cost of Crime and Its Implications. http://www.securedbydesign.com/professionals/pdfs/The-Carbon-Cost-of-Crime.pdf</ref>
+* A reduction in the carbon cost of crime<ref> Criminologist Ken Pease, has revealed the significance of crime on English and Welsh CO² output; an estimated total of 11.6 million tonnes - that's 2% of the UKs' total CO² emissions. See: Ken Pease (2009): The Carbon Cost of Crime and Its Implications. Online: http://www.securedbydesign.com/professionals/pdfs/The-Carbon-Cost-of-Crime.pdf</ref>
 * A reduction in costs of securing void areas
-* Less people who feel forced to move to another home<ref>"Crime levels and bad neighbours are the reason for almost ten million Britons moving home in the last five years" Source: Abbey National Survey (2007).</ref>
+* Less people who feel forced to move to another home<ref>"Crime levels and bad neighbours are the reason for almost ten million Britons moving home in the last five years" Source: Abbey National Survey (2007) In: .</ref>
 ==Related subjects==

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 The inflicted damage of crime (in monetary terms) is the start of an estimation of the economic benefits of security measures since they constitute the direct benefits of the mitigation measures. Examples of direct economic impacts of crime are: loss of property, physical damage to property, business interruption, mental and physical harm, insurance transactions.
-Crime rates in Europe and the US decreased since the early nineties while spending on security measures have risen steadily<ref name="ftn51"> Source: OECD (2004). ''The Security Economy''. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>. However, there is not such a thing as a direct robust link between crime rates and security measures, since other factors like a [[Crime displacement|shift in crime]] (more burglaries instead of robberies), growing international trade, and an increase in terrorist events (in some western countries) are also important factors that explain the increase in demand for security measures.
+Crime rates in Europe and the US decreased since the early nineties while spending on security measures have risen steadily<ref name=OECD></ref>. However, there is not such a thing as a direct robust link between crime rates and security measures, since other factors like a [[Crime displacement|shift in crime]] (more burglaries instead of robberies), growing international trade, and an increase in terrorist events (in some western countries) are also important factors that explain the increase in demand for security measures.
 ===Indirect (secondary) benefits of security===

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Costs of security==
 ===Direct (primary) costs of security===
-There are several types of [[Security|security measures]]. Some of these measures involve monetary expenditures (e.g. locks, money safes, alarm systems, security guards, insurances, etc.), and others only involve [[Opportunity cost|opportunity cost]], such as the time required to take protective measures (e.g. training a guard dog, or avoiding a high crime area). Public spending on security measures could also involve investment in civilian matters such as education, prevention and protection programmes in addition to security-related spending on judiciary, police and military items<ref name=OECD> Source: OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X. Online: http://www.oecd.org/futures/16692437.pdf</ref>.
+There are several types of [[Security|security measures]]. Some of these measures involve monetary expenditures (e.g. locks, money safes, alarm systems, security guards, insurances, etc.), and others only involve [[Opportunity cost|opportunity cost]], such as the time required to take protective measures (e.g. training a guard dog, or avoiding a high crime area). Public spending on security measures could also involve investment in civilian matters such as education, prevention and protection programmes in addition to security-related spending on judiciary, police and military items<ref name=OECD> Source: OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X.</ref>.
 The magnitude of the [[Primary economic impact|direct (primary) costs]] of security measures is significant, but very difficult to quantify in financial terms<ref>One of the main reasons for this is that a lot of expenditures on safety measures have multiple purposes and do not automatically translate into higher costs or spending.</ref>. One of the main reasons for this is that a lot of expenditures on safety measures have multiple purposes, and do not automatically translate into higher costs or spending.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ===Indirect (secondary) costs of security===
 Security measures can also have an [[Secondary economic impact|indirect (secondary) economic impact]] on the home economy.
-* Tighter security, for example, may imply longer delivery times and disruption of global supply chains and of finely-tuned just-in-time delivery systems<ref name="ftn44"> Stevens (2004). The emerging Security Economy: An Introduction. Published in: OECD (2004). ''The Security Economy''. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>.
+* Tighter security, for example, may imply longer delivery times and disruption of global supply chains and of finely-tuned just-in-time delivery systems<ref name="ftn44"> Stevens (2004): The emerging Security Economy: An Introduction. Published in: OECD (2004): The Security Economy. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>.
-* According to OECD simulations, measures introduced in the wake of September 11 could increase trading costs by 1 percent, leading to global welfare losses of around USD 75 billion per year. According to Brück, a one-day delay in border controls has been estimated to generate costs of 0.5 percent of the value of the goods (Hummels, 2001).
+* According to OECD<ref name=OECD></ref> simulations, measures introduced in the wake of September 11 could increase trading costs by 1 percent, leading to global welfare losses of around USD 75 billion per year. According to Brück, a one-day delay in border controls has been estimated to generate costs of 0.5 percent of the value of the goods (Hummels, 2001).
-* A number of researchers have concerns that security measures just [[Crime displacement|displace crime]] to those that are less protected. Yet, according to Pease and Gill (2011)<ref>Pease, K. & M. Gill (2011). Home security and place design: some evidence and its policy implications.</ref>"the weight of evidence on displacement (and there are various types) is that it is at worst only partial".
+* A number of researchers have concerns that security measures just [[Crime displacement|displace crime]] to those that are less protected. Yet, according to the British Home security deparment<ref>Pease, K. & M. Gill (2011): Home security and place design: some evidence and its policy implications.</ref>"the weight of evidence on displacement (and there are various types) is that it is at worst only partial".
-* Hobijn (2001)<ref name="ftn45"> Hummels, D. (2001). Time as a Trade Barrier. Mimeo, Department of Economic, Purdue University, West Lafayette/Indiana. In: Brück (2004). Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. Published in OECD (2004). ''The Security Economy''. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, nevertheless, claims that on the long term neither private nor public spending on security measures have a major impact on the economy (although also the indirect costs are very difficult to predict/measure)<ref name="ftn46"> Brück (2004), warns to be a bit careful with this conclusion, since the future costs of security spendings are difficult to predict in general.</ref>.
+* Hobijn (2001)<ref name="ftn45"> Hummels, D. (2001): Time as a Trade Barrier. Mimeo, Department of Economic, Purdue University, West Lafayette/Indiana. In: Brück (2004). Assessing the Economic Trade-offs of the Security Economy. Published in OECD (2004). ''The Security Economy''. ISBN 92-64-10772-X</ref>, nevertheless, claims that on the long term neither private nor public spending on security measures have a major impact on the economy (although also the indirect costs are very difficult to predict/measure)<ref name="ftn46"> Brück (2004), warns to be a bit careful with this conclusion, since the future costs of security spendings are difficult to predict in general.</ref>.
 ==Benefits of security==