Economic growth and crime are often seen as separate issues, one the domain of policymakers and economists, the other of law enforcement and criminologists. But the connection between the two is undeniable. When an economy expands, opportunities increase, social stability improves, and criminal incentives decrease. In contrast, when economic stagnation sets in, crime tends to rise, fuelled by desperation, lack of prospects, and the failure of social structures.
Historically, crime rates tend to decline when economic growth is robust. The reason is simple, when people have jobs, assets to protect, and a stake in society, they are far less likely to engage in criminal activity. Rising incomes allow individuals to meet their basic needs, reducing the appeal of illicit activities. Moreover, prosperity fosters stronger communities, where social bonds and informal enforcement mechanisms deter criminal behaviour before it begins.
One of the primary drivers of crime is lack of opportunity. In economically depressed areas, young men, who statistically commit the most crimes, find themselves with few legal avenues to success. Without jobs, they are more likely to turn to theft, drug dealing, or organised criminal enterprises. In contrast, economic growth expands legal employment, offering better alternatives to crime.
Crime is fundamentally an issue of incentives. When legal opportunities are scarce, individuals assess their options and sometimes conclude that criminal behaviour is the most rational choice. This is especially true when policing is weak, penalties are lenient, or enforcement is inconsistent. However, when economic growth occurs, wages rise, and job opportunities become more accessible, the incentives shift. A young man weighing the risk of robbing a convenience store against the certainty of a stable job with benefits is far more likely to choose the latter.
It’s no coincidence that societies with the highest economic freedom, where job creation is easy, regulations are minimal, and entrepreneurship is encouraged, tend to have lower crime rates. A dynamic, thriving private sector absorbs potential criminals into the workforce. Conversely, overregulated economies with excessive government intervention create barriers to entry for legal employment, pushing many toward black-market alternatives.
Every economist could easily provide evidence of the link between larger bureaucracies and higher crime. The biggest cost to taxpayers will always be the employment of bureaucrats, not just in their lack of productivity and value, also in the potential and real harm they do to societies if not adequately policed and regulated.
Economic growth does more than create jobs, it strengthens the social fabric. Thriving businesses invest in communities, improving infrastructure, education, and security. Homeownership increases, and with it, neighbourhood stability. People who own property are more invested in their surroundings and less likely to tolerate criminal activity.
Strong economies produce tax revenues that can be directed toward effective policing and judicial systems. However, the key here is effectiveness, not bureaucracy. Many crime-ridden areas have bloated but ineffective law enforcement agencies, weighed down by red tape and political agendas. Economic growth allows for properly funded security initiatives that focus on deterrence, swift justice, and strategic deployment of police forces.
A common but flawed argument is that poverty itself causes crime. If this were true, some of the poorest regions in the world would be the most crime ridden. Yet, many low-income rural areas have far lower crime rates than suburban centres with much higher welfare spending. What drives crime is not poverty per se but the breakdown of social order and the absence of opportunity.
A government job is not an opportunity, it is an expense borne by society. While it may serve as a reasonable option for those looking to ease into retirement, one should be wary of any young person eager to join the bureaucracy. Such a choice signals a lack of ambition, a preference for security over productivity. Even more concerning is those who spend a lifetime in government, for this suggests not just complacency but a fundamental absence of purpose. A life spent in the machinery of bureaucracy is not just unproductive, it is a tragic squandering of potential.
In suburban areas where economic stagnation and welfare dependency dominate, crime flourishes despite massive government spending. This is because welfare, by itself, does not create upward mobility, it merely sustains people in place. In contrast, economic growth offers real progress, allowing individuals to improve their circumstances rather than remain trapped in cycles of dependency.
Crime is not an inevitability of suburban life, it is a function of economic and social conditioning. Growth-oriented policies that encourage business development, reduce regulatory burdens, and foster job creation have a profound effect on crime reduction. The key to safer cities is not more government programs but a thriving economy that offers legal and lucrative alternatives to crime.
Security professionals understand that crime cannot simply be policed away, it must be rendered unattractive as an option. This requires a society in which opportunity is abundant, ownership is widespread, and law enforcement is effective in punishing those who choose to violate the social contract. In this way, economic growth serves not only as a wealth generator but as the most effective long-term crime deterrent available. From the author.
The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with almost 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.
Comments