jetpack domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131updraftplus domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131avia_framework domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /mnt/stor08-wc1-ord1/694335/916773/www.tvhe.co.nz/web/content/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131Not necessarily for two reasons:
1) You can have a socially optimal outcome when one of the parties is worse off – however it involves making value judgments (and assuming some type of cardinal utility as a result).
2) Even if both parties are better off, there could be an externality to the rest of society. The is what is discussed above.
One such externality stems from the prevention of crime – if it is optimal for both the victim and the criminal to ignore the crime, it may create a situation where the criminal has the incentive to victimise someone else. As a result, not dealing with the crime may not be socially optimal, even if it is for the victim and the criminal.
]]>The biggest mistake you are making is that you are confusing socially normalized costs with individualized costs. The macro and micro level analysis are separate. The fact that the cost/benefit calculus may result in a different conclusion depending on the unit is expected. The real issues is a value judgment. What good are your trying to promote? The social good? Or are your trying to increase the marginal utility of the individual victim or criminal.
I think it is best to abandon an abstract notion of the social good. What is socially optimal is precisely the option that increases the marginal utility of both the victim and the criminal. In plain terms, if both the victim and the criminal are “at peace” with the result, then society has nothing more to say on the matter.
]]>Old transaction costss, they should do the trick. Does that mean that the law was optimal when it was formed, but isn’t now? I guess so 😛
Hi Tejvan,
There are definitely crimes that are worth reporting, but the purpose of this blog piece was to talk about crimes where people end up finding them not worth reporting. As their is a postivite externality associated with them reporting the crime (in so far as its impact on society), if the police accurately portrayed the difficulties associated with reporting these types of crimes we would have a suboptimal level of reporting. As a result, police make it sound easier to report a crime than it is, to try to enduce a level of reporting closer to the social optimum.
]]>Why is that whenever I report my bike is stolen, the only thing the police say is “why did you buy an expensive bike?” Why didn’t you spend £100 on a lock – they make it very clear they have no intention of pursuing it.
Tejvan
http://www.economicshelp.org