Ensaios sobre Criminalidade e Pobreza

Abstract

This dissertation consists of two articles, which was made using data and different methodologies. The first, entitled "Is there a relationship between socioeconomic factors and the homicide rate in Brazil?", Has the object of study to examine whether there is a relationship between socioeconomic factors and the homicide rate in Brazil, in the period between 2004 and 2011. We used data from the National Survey by Household Sample Survey - PNAD - the Institute of Applied Economic Research - IPEA -. and the Ministry of Health While methodological procedure made use of panel data with the estimates by Generalized Least Squares (GLS), proposed by Greene (2003). The results indicated that in Brazil, socioeconomic factors are among the main determinants of high crime rates recorded in the years under observation. The urbanization may be contributing to expansion of homicides, which demand greater investment in public safety. It has also shown the importance of education as a tool in combating and preventing crime and revealed that the poverty level does not always translate into more crime, but increases the likelihood that private individuals income will commit crimes. Moreover, it showed that the level of income has a greater contribution to such a reality due to the expected utility in the execution of crimes. The second article, entitled "The multidimensional poverty in Paraíba via basic needs approach and capabilities," was based on annual data from the National Sample Survey (PNAD) from 2006 to 2013 and measured the dimensions of poverty in the state , by constructing the global indicator and individual dimensions. For this purpose, we made use of Bourguignon methodology and Chakravarty (2003), which presents an alternative way of measuring the multidimensionality of poverty. The main results signaled that paraibana population suffers deprivation, particularly in runs, such as access to primary education, primary and secondary; services access to communication and information, housing conditions, health and work. There was also a reduction of deprivation in six dimensions, as well as the proportion of multidimensional poor population of 27.78% in 2006 to 22.49% in 2013. In relation to the isolated analysis of urban areas and rural, it was found that poverty was more intense in rural areas.