Cited by 11Economic and Environmental ValuationCrime Patterns and InterventionsCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance

Willingness to pay for crime reduction: The role of information in the Americas

Open access
Domínguez, Patricio, Scartascini, Carlos·2024·Journal of Public Economics

Abstract

Crime levels are a perennial development problem in Latin America and a renewed concern in the United States. At the same time, trust in the police has been falling, and questions abound about citizens’ willingness to support government efforts to fight crime. We conduct a survey experiment to elicit willingness to contribute toward reducing crime across five Latin American countries and the United States. We compare homicide, robbery, and theft estimates and find a higher willingness to contribute to more severe crimes and for higher crime reductions. In addition, we examine the role of information on the willingness to contribute by conducting two experiments. While we document an 11 percent gap in willingness to pay for crime reduction between people who under and over-estimate the murder rate, we find that this gap can be wholly eliminated by informing respondents about the actual level of crime. We also show that exposing respondents to crime-related news increases their willingness to pay by 5 percent. On average, our estimates suggest that households are willing to contribute around $152 per year for a 20 percent reduction in homicide, representing an increase in security spending between 15 and 65 percent in Latin American countries (up to 0.5 percent of GDP).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2024.105205

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • To mitigate concerns about hypothetical bias, budget neglect, and sample validity, we follow best practices from both the CV and survey experiment literatures.

    “To mitigate concerns about hypothetical bias, budget neglect, and sample validity, we follow best practices from both the CV (Bishop et al., 2017;Domínguez and Scartascini, 2024) and survey experiment literatures (Stantcheva, 2023).”

    From What is the Best Response? Examining the Impact of Police and Their Alternatives (2025) · cites this paper as Domínguez and Scartascini, 2024

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 51 · Cited by 11

Authors
Domínguez, P., & Scartascini, C.
Affiliations
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
  • Inter-American Development Bank (US)
Corresponding author
Scartascini, Carlos
Venue
Journal of Public Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-11
Volume
239
Pages
105205
ISSN
0047-2727 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401900701
Cited by
11
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
FWCI
3.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Public Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Keywords
willingness to pay, crime reduction, homicide, robbery, theft, crime information, security spending, trust in police, Latin America, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review