Since crime reduces social welfare

Since crime reduces social welfare, economists have also been studying this additional issue. The many other theories that attempt to explain the causes of crime include that of the criminal\'s rational choice, originated in the seminal work of Becker (1968), which was expanded by Ehrlich (1973). Although some economic studies on the causes of crime have already been carried out in the past (e.g. Fleisher, 1963, 1966; Smigel-Leibowistz, 1965; Ehrlich, 1967), it was only after Becker (1968) and Ehrlich (1973) that empirical studies could be based on an economic theory. Since then, economists have been increasingly involved in surveys along these lines. However, the analyses were often focused on criminals’ behavior, meaning that they were mainly intended to identify the main causes of the decision to commit a crime. Empirical evidence has usually held the arguments of the economic purchase EZ Cap Reagent GG on deterrence, expected return on, and opportunity cost of crime. But little is known about the factors that influence the likelihood of an individual being victimized, namely, their victimization risk. This is so because most studies used data aggregated by countries, states or municipalities. With data from victimization surveys, however, one can study the determinants of criminal victimization using a sample of individual data. This type of data makes it possible to control for the main characteristics of individuals with a bearing on victimization risk, such as their age and gender. Among previous studies that investigated the determinants of victimization risk, we can cite Witte (1980), Sparks (1981), Meier and Miethe (1993), Miethe and McDowall (1993) and Levitt (1999). In Brazil, the empirical analyses of determinants of victimization risk carried out by Carneiro (2000), Beato et al. (2004), Gomes and Paz (2008) and Madalozzo and Furtado (2011) deserve special attention. Apart from these studies, three recent Brazilian studies on the causes of victimization should be highlighted. Gomes (2011) investigated the importance of the spatial dimension in connection with the risk of becoming a victim of household theft or burglary in São Paulo city; Peixoto et al. (2011) analyzed the determinants of victimization based on a systemic perspective of criminal dynamics, with the aim of understanding the causes of changes in victimization patterns between 2003 and 2008 in the city of São Paulo; Scorzafave et al. (2011) carried out a general analysis of the determinants of the risk of becoming a victim of property crimes and crimes against persons. This study also investigated possible causes for the underreporting of crimes along the lines of studies previously conducted by Santos and Kassouf (2008) and Madalozzo and Furtado (2011). Victimization is a complex process and, consequently, one that is difficult to be modeled empirically. There is a no single well-structured theory to guide empirical analyses. Studies have usually been based on two approaches that consider victims as objects of study, highlighting the importance of their “lifestyle” and creation of “opportunities” for criminals to carry out their crimes. Empirical analyses have been mainly based on the theoretical framework proposed by Cohen et al. (1981). Based on some previous studies, these authors expanded and formalized a sociological theory (which they refer to as the “opportunity model of predatory victimization”) to explain victimization risk. In this approach there are five factors which are strongly related to risk: exposure, proximity, guardianship, target attractiveness, and definitional proprieties of specific crimes. Hypothetically, wealth has a twofold bearing on victimization risk according to Cohen et al. (1981). On the one hand, wealthier individuals are more economically attractive for criminals, meaning that more observed wealth implies greater victimization risk. On the other hand, wealthier individuals have stronger reasons and more money to spend on their own security. Therefore, the effect of wealth on victimization risk is ambiguous, so only its net effect can be observed empirically.