This paper analyses the efficiency of the Lisbon police force precincts with a 2-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA). In the first stage, we estimate the DEA efficiency scores and compare the precincts with each other. The aim of this procedure is to seek out those best practices that will lead to the improved performance of all of the precincts. We rank the precincts according to their efficiency for the period 2000–2002. In the second stage, we estimate a Tobit model in which the efficiency scores are regressed in socio-economic issues, identifying social causes which vary across the city and that affect deterrence policy. The economic implications arising from the study are considered.
BankerR.D.CharnesA.CooperW. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.
2.
BannisterJ.FyfeN. (2001). Introduction to Special Issue on ‘Fear and the City’. Urban Studies, 38, 807–813.
3.
BarrosC.P. (2006). Productivity growth in Lisbon police forces. Public Organisation Review, 6, 21–35.
4.
BarrosC.P. (2007). Analysis of efficiency in police precincts. International Review of Applied Economics (In press).
5.
BarrosC.P.AlvesF. P. (2006). Efficiency in crime prevention: A case study for Lisbon precincts. International Advances in Economic Research, 11, 315–328.
6.
BauerP.W.BergerA.N.FerrierG.D.HumphreyD.B. (1998). Consistency conditions for regulatory analysis of financial institutions: A comparison of frontier efficiency methods. Journal of Economics and Business, 50, 85–114.
7.
BeckerG. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 1169–1217.
8.
BeggJ., (1999). Cities and competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36, 795–807.
9.
BénabouR. (1996). Heterogeneity, stratification and growth: Macroeconomic implications of community structure and school finance. American Economic Review, 86, 584–609.
10.
BensonB.L. (1995). An exploration of the impact of modern arbitration statutes on the development of arbitration in the United States. Journal of Law Economics and Organisation, 11(2), 479–501.
11.
BoxS. (1987) Recession, Crime and Punishment. London: Macmillan.
12.
CameronS. (1988). The economics of crime deterrence: A survey of theory and evidence. Kyklos, 41, 301–323.
13.
CameronS. (1989). Police cost function estimates for England and Wales. Applied Economics, 21, 1279–1289.
14.
CarringtonR.PuthuchearyN.RoseD. (1997). Performance measurement service provision: The case of police services in New South Wales. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 8, 415–430.
15.
ChapmanJ.I.HirschW.Z.SonnenblumS. (1975, October). Crime prevention, the police production function and budgeting. Public Finance, 197–215.
16.
CharnesA.CooperW.W.LewinA.Y.SeifordL.M. (1995). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
17.
CharnesA.CooperW.W.RhodesE. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operations Research, 2, 429–444.
18.
ChiricosT.G. (1987). Rates of crime and unemployment. Social Problems, 34,187–212.
19.
CoelliT.J. (1996). A Guide to DEAP version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis (Computer) Program (Working Paper No. 8/96). Armidale, Australia: University of New England, Center for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis.
20.
CoelliT.J.RaoP.BatteseG.E. (1998). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
21.
CooperW.W.SeifordL.M.ToneK. (2000). Data Envelopment Analysis. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
22.
CormanH.MocanH.N. (2000). A time series analysis of crime deterrence, drug abuse in New York City. American Economic Review, 90, 584–604.
23.
DarroughM.N.HeinekeJ.M. (1979). Law enforcement agencies as multi-product firms: An econometric investigation of production costs. Public Finances, 2, 176–195.
24.
Diez-TicioA.MancebónM.J. (2002). The efficiency of the Spanish police service: An application of the multi-ativity DEA model. Applied Economics, 34, 351–362.
25.
DrakeL.SimperR. (2000). Productivity estimation and the size-efficiency relationship in English and Welsh police forces: An application of DEA and multiple discriminant analysis. International Review of Law and Economics, 20, 53–73.
26.
DrakeL.SimperR. (2001). The economic evaluation of policing activity: An application of a hybrid methodology. European Journal of Law and Economics, 12, 181–200.
27.
DrakeL.SimperR. (2002). X-efficiency and scale economies in policing: A comparative study using the distribution free approach and DEA. Applied Economics, 34, 1859–1870.
28.
DrakeL.SimperR. (2003). The measurement of English and Welsh Police Forces efficiency: A comparison of distance function models. European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 165–186.
29.
ElliotC.EllingworthD. (1998) Exploring the relationship between unemployment and property crime. Applied Economic Letters, 5(8), 527–530.
30.
FareR.S.GrosskopfS.LovelC.A.K. (1994). Production Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
FarrellM.J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 120, 253–290.
32.
FinneyM. (1997). Scale economies and police department consolidations: Evidence from Los Angeles. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15, 121–127.
33.
Gymah-BrempongK. (1987a). Economies of scale in municipal police departments: The case of Florida. Review of Economics and Statistics, 5(1), 352–356.
34.
Gymah-BrempongK. (1987b). Elasticity of factor substitution in police agencies. Journal of Business and Statistics, 5(2), 257–265.
35.
Gymah-BrempongK. (1989). Production of public safety: Are socioeconomic characteristics of local communities important factors?Journal of Applied Econometrics, 4, 57–71.
36.
GyapongA.O.Gymah-BrempongK. (1988a). Factor substitution, price elasticity of factor demand and returns to scale in police production: Evidence from Michigan. Economic Journal, 54, 863–878.
37.
GyapongA.O.Gymah-BrempongK. (1988b). Demand for factors of production: A study of Michigan's municipal police departments. Applied Economics, 20, 1421–1433.
38.
HorneyJ.OsgoodD.W.MarshalI.H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circunstances. American Sociological Review, 60, 655–673.
39.
KellyM. (1988). Inequality and Crime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82, 530–539.
40.
KumbhakarS.C. (1987). Production frontiers and panel data: An application to U.S. Class 1 railroads. Journal of Business and Economics Statistics, 5, 249–255.
41.
LevittS. (1997). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effect of policy on crime. American Economic Review, 87, 270–290.
42.
LevittS. (1998). Why do increased arrest rates appear to reduce crime: Deterrence, incapacitation, or measurement error?Economic Inquiry, 3, 353–372.
43.
MacDonaldZ. (2001). A microeconometric analysis of the under reporting of property crime and its implications. British Journal of Criminology, 4, 127–149.
44.
MalmquistS. (1953). Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estatistica, 4, 209–242.
45.
NyhanR.C.MartinL.L. (1999) Assessing the performance of municipal police services using data envelopment analysis: An exploratory study. State and Local Government Review, 31, 18–30.
46.
PersonT.TabelliniG. (1994). Is inequality harmful for growth?American Economic Review, 84, 600–621.
RaabR.LichtyR.W. (2002). Identifying sub-areas that comprise a greater metropolitan area: The criterion of county relative efficiency. Journal of Regional Science, 42, 579–594.
49.
RaccoM. (2003). Remaking place and securitising space: Urban regeneration and the strategies, tactics and practices of policing in the UK. Urban Studies, 40, 1869–1887.
50.
RayS.C. (1988). Data envelopment analysis, nondiscrectionary inputs and efficiency: An alternative interpretation. Socioeconomic Planning Services, 22, 167–176.
51.
SimarL. (1992). Estimating efficiency from frontier models with panel data: A comparison of parametric, non-parametric and semi-parametric methods with bootstrapping. Journal of Productivity Analyis, 3, 171–191.
52.
Steering Committee for the Review of State Service Provision. (1999). Linking Inputs and Outputs: Activity Measurement by Police Services. Canberra, Australia: Ausinfo.
53.
SunS. (2002). Measuring the relative efficiency of police precincts using data envelopment analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 36, 51–71.
54.
ThanassoulisE. (1995). Assessing police forces in England and Wales using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 87, 641–657.
55.
ThanassoulisE. (2001). Introduction to the Theory and Application of Data Envelopment Analysis: A foundation text with integrated software. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
56.
VasquezJ.M.SeamanB.A. (1997). Criminal Behavior in General Equilibrium: Who benefits from crime?Journal of Socio-Economics, 26, 303–324.
57.
WorthingtonA.C.DolleryB.E. (2002). Incorporating contextual information in public sector efficiency analyses: A comparative study of NSW local government. Applied Economics, 34, 453–464.
