Crime and Punishment: the Story of Chinese Strike hard 浙江大学法学院双周论坛 Crime and Punishment: the Story of Chinese Strike hard 陈春良 博士 浙江工商大学公共管理学院 清华大学公共管理学院 With Isaac Ehrlich and Zhiqiang Liu

outline 写在前面：犯罪经济学 研究动机 文献 严打：背景与典型事实 数据 结论和讨论

写在前面 犯罪经济学 Becker（1968） 理性选择框架中的犯罪与惩罚

写在前面 预期效用最大化问题 Ehrlich（1973）：加入市场、时间配置，犯罪的潜在收益与机会成本 一阶条件：

写在前面 内点解 角点解 犯罪-劳动时间配置模型：刑罚威慑、犯罪激励

Motivation 刑罚威慑是犯罪经济学研究最重要主题 需要估计刑罚威慑弹性：惩罚概率、严厉程度 执法变量和犯罪率之间的共时决定问题使得威慑效应被低估 需要外生的冲击，构造威慑变量的外生变化，用以估计刑罚威慑效应 惩罚概率的讨论和一致性较好，但是严厉程度存在争议（威慑？、能力剥夺？）

Literature 惩罚严厉程度与犯罪1：监禁 反对：Lee and McCray (2009) Levitt（1996）、Levitt (1998)、Katz et al (2003) Chen and Shapiro (2007)、Owens (2009)、Maurin and Ouss (2009)、Drago et al (2009)、Paolo Buonanno and Steven Raphael（2013） 反对：Lee and McCray (2009) 惩罚严厉程度与犯罪2：三犯出局(Three strike) Kessler and Levitt (1998)、Zimring et al (2001), Shepherd(2002), and Helland &Tabarrok (2007) （和严打不同，我们的创新） 严打与中国转型期刑事犯罪问题： 严打：Bakken(1993, 2005a, b) 、Harrod Tanner (1999)、Scott Tanner (2005)、Trevaskes (2005, 2007, 2010) 中国犯罪：Bin Liang (2005) 、Jianhong Liu (2007)、Leana et al（2013）

Crime, Punishment and Strike Hard in China

Strike Hard: Backgrounds and Stylized Facts Yanda, by far the most debatable public policy regarding crime and punishment in China. Up till now, there are four nation-wide strike hard, launched respectively at 1983, 1996, 2001 and the very latest June 2010. The first one initiated in August, 1983, and lasting the next three years to 1986, most influential, worst criticized, deemed a great success by Chinese public security sector, and viewed as a good but less-welcome story for deterrence.

Strike Hard: Backgrounds and Stylized Facts---continued Typical features of 1983 strike hard: Exogenous temporary shock (fixed three years) Severity increased almost for all categories of crimes Even weaker procedure protection, quick sentence, speedy trial Wide use of capital punishment Spot execution and public trials

Strike Hard: Backgrounds and Stylized Facts---continued Two official documents by standing committee of NPC on Sep.2nd, 1983 In practice, stories and evidence of severity increase could be found in almost every yearbook from local public security sector describing strike hard. 我们看到的材料是没有区分犯罪类型？重罚、快罚：非严重犯罪更多惩罚提升空间？

Strike Hard: Backgrounds and Stylized Facts---continued

Strike Hard: Backgrounds and Stylized Facts---continued 严打的原因 和当时犯罪形势没有关联, since from 1982, crime rate has been entering into a down-sloping path; and even in June, 1983, many provincial officers still cited local crime rates to show a even better public security order (Harrod Tanner, 2005). To gain support for economic reformation, and was directly connected with a famous talking of Deng Xiaoping in July 26th, 1983. There is no reverse causality. （至上而下的安排和地方犯罪率无关）

严打与犯罪威慑 外生冲击与刑罚威慑 规模效应：所有犯罪 替代效应：犯罪类型差异和犯罪区间差异

严打与犯罪威慑 First look

数据和分析策略 两个分析基准模型：短期、长期 标准犯罪供给方程 长期因素：替代效应 Data source: Yearbook of Law

数据和分析策略 浙江28个县1979-1990 不同变量的定义和构造：国际惯例和说明

数据和分析策略 We expect a short term crime reduction due to strike hard, but a positive or insignificant in post strike hard period. Three-year average comparison: a first look Regression-based Short-term: two-way fixed effect model, observed and unobserved heterogeneity Possible endogenous deterrence variable: IV Long-term impact on crime control: trend Robustness check: experimenting with different strike hard dummies, repeating key regression using different dataset

The Results A first look from three-year average Table-3

The Results A first look from three-year average Table-3

The Results—regression-based analysis

The Results—regression-based analysis

The Results—regression-based analysis

The Results—regression-based analysis

The Results—regression-based analysis

The Results—Robustness Check (1) City level dataset

The Results—Robustness Check (2) Provincial level dataset

结论与讨论 （1）惩罚概率弹性：-0.589-0.9 （2）惩罚严厉程度：26%（1983作为参照） （3）严厉程度可以解释一半左右的犯罪率下降 （4）严打短期犯罪率下降，但是从长期来看需要反思，犯罪率阶段波动 （5）主要是严厉威慑，而不是能力剥夺效应发挥作用

致谢 请多多指正，欢迎交流： 陈春良 浙江工商大学 cnethernet@163.com