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
Back to article page