The Tipping Point: Broken Window Theory
I recently read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, which describes many phenomena in which little changes cause big differences. In particular, I found the Broken Window Theory to be very interesting. The background behind the case was that New York City in the 80s and 90s was a very dangerous place to be. Murder rates were high and crimes were common. A proposed theory was that the overall environment and atmosphere of the city was in a poor condition. The streets were littered with pop bottles, and the walls were painted with graffiti. All of these conditions, namely the broken windows where the name originates, were conducive to more crime taking place. The idea was that if small misdemeanors were allowed to take place, what would be there to stop a greater crime such as robberies and murders?
As the name of the book suggests, this concept of the tipping point directly relates to the idea of the tipping point in a network. People who were littering or performing other small acts and misdemeanors had a certain interest or r(x) in doing these actions. For example, littering is just for convenience, broken windows represent the laziness to fix them, charging money at turnstiles have some small monetary benefits. When the fraction of being doing these actions (without punishment) increases, then this is where the network effect, f(z), comes into play. The more people who perform these infractions without being punished, the greater the f(z). This is intuitive because if I see that people are getting away with small infractions, then I will have a greater incentive to do those small infractions. Perhaps, I may even try to commit a greater crime.
The solution to this problem was to strictly enforce the law on every tiny infraction. Graffiti on trains was washed away every night. The police presence around turnstiles increased. Public drinking and littering was punished. Streets were cleaned up, and the broken windows were repaired. These measures, in effect, caused a drastic decrease in the number of minor infractions in a short period of time. Then, the value of the network effect, f(z), afterwards was small enough such that people wouldn’t want commit these same crimes again. Thus, this eventually sustains an equilibrium in which crime is maintained at a lower level, which is evident by the drop in criminal activities during that period of time in New York City.
Source: Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown, 2000. Print.