Critique Of Steven D. Levitt's Freakonomics

Critique of a Freakonomics Critique The New York Times bestseller Freakonomics, written by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, gave a lasting effect to the masses of audiences it claimed, but it did not last without hearing from its critics. Several academics and scholars alike took to the book disapprovingly, pointing out that not all of Levitt’s hypothesis were plausible, and that his explanations lacked substance and credit. Among the crowd was Steven Malanga, senior editor of the City Journal and associate of the Manhattan Institute. Malanga narrates his article by accurately confronting Levitt’s imperfections, but he does not consider the overall intention of Freakonomics, or how each chapter was written on Levitt’s basis for decoding

Malanga explains his critique further by showing the most notorious examples of Levitt ignoring statistics: such as, the drops in crime during the selective period from the 1970s to the early 1990s. Levitt does not consider valid factors like crime rates for cities that did not implement broken window policies, or in his abortion claim, the genepool for criminals leading to more one-parent family dynamics in traditionally underprivileged environments. Research also revealed that in major crime hubs like Washington D.C., lower quantities of employed policemen did not contribute to the decline of criminal activity-- what was to thank were creative policing tactics that allowed the post-9/11 budgeted resources to be used more effectively. All in all, the driving force of Malanga’s article was that Levitt challenged his share of conventional wisdom, but he deprived his perspective by not paying heed to the real-life data that did not contribute to his

Levitt leads in the introduction that his aim with Stephen Dubner is to analyze incentives-- what he believes are the building blocks of economics-- and by doing so contemplating how complex questions can be broken apart to be understood. As an experienced business editor, Malanga approaches the points of the book from a realistic stance, which he supports with all of the data in his article. Levitt’s failures to directly credit others does give cause for concern, but Malanga does not grant any credit to Levitt for trying to connect seemingly unconnected topics that could be explained through a plethora of factors. For instance: the effect of the abortion laws on falling crime rates, however controversial. Malanga calls upon Levitt limiting his sources, as he does not account for all the other policed cities that did not fit his criteria. Yet it was not considered that Levitt might have been searching for evidence that he could use to best portray his ideas to the readers, or that Levitt might have encouraged the audience to think separately from what they are spoon fed by conducting their own research on the subject. So Malanga does introduce his critique professionally and with dignity, but consequently he deviates from Levitt’s intention for