Skip to main content

Table 10 The impact of alcohol regulation on crime in states never under prohibition

From: The effectiveness and effects of alcohol regulation: evidence from India

  Cruelty, n = 188 Molestation, n = 188 Sexual harassment, n = 188 Rape, n = 235
MLDA 29.27   − 0.048   − 2.89   3.28  
(15.61)*   (3.96)   (1.71)   (4.00)  
{0.385}   {0.959}   {0.605}   {0.519}  
MLDA ≥ 21   − 601.48   − 224.68   68.37   18.43
  (299.65)*   (54.33)***   (10.06)***   (18.03)
  {0.884}   {0.782}   {0.480}   {0.407}
MLDA ≥ 25   117.10   − 0.19   − 11.59   − 5.66
  (62.45)*   (5.87)   (6.84)   (10.57)
  {0.396}   {0.992}   {0.592}   {0.624}
R-sq 0.76 0.76 0.97 0.97 0.79 0.79 0.94 0.95
  Murder, n = 235 Dacoity, n = 235 Robbery, n = 235 Riots, n = 235
MLDA 15.67   − 5.536   48.48   − 152.78  
(6.87)*   (13.806)   (13.81)***   (79.95)*  
{0.0319}††   {0.739}   {0.179}   {0.293}  
MLDA ≥ 21   61.94   − 11.94   202.11   − 780.14
  (32.91)*   (76.04)   (41.33)***   (234.60)**
  {0.172}   {0.937}   {0.193}   {0.241}
MLDA ≥ 25   29.91   − 32.36   69.61   94.72
  (13.74)*   (27.56)   (33.95)*   (134.85)
  {0.192}   {0.454}   {0.286}   {0.750}
R-sq 0.80 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.72 0.72
  1. All regressions include controls for the state literacy rate, the fraction of people living in urban areas, per capita GDP, the unemployment rate, the number of police per capita, and state and year fixed effects, and are weighted by state population. The omitted minimum legal drinking age is 18. Standard errors presented in parentheses are clustered by state. *Significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, ***significant at 1%. p values in braces are adjusted for small clusters using wild-t bootstrap. p ≤ 0.1, ††p ≤ 0.05, †††p ≤ 0.01