Analysis demonstrates that conventional research designs often misrepresent immigrant-native crime differentials, suggesting systemic problems in methodology.
Recent research documents that many research designs in the social sciences are underpowered: they can only detect extremely large -- often implausible -- effects. I show that this problem is structural in the workhorse approach to studying the immigration-crime link: regressing changes in aggregate crime rates on exogenous shifts in local immigrant shares. Because immigrants typically comprise only a small fraction of the population, even large crime-rate differences between immigrants and natives are mechanically diluted. As a result, null findings from such designs are predetermined and reveal little to no information about immigrant-native crime differentials. I derive a closed-form expression for the minimum detectable gap -- the smallest immigrant-native crime difference these regressions can identify. Using Monte Carlo simulations calibrated to real-world immigration and crime data, I then demonstrate that conventional designs only achieve adequate statistical power with implausibly large crime differentials and extreme immigration shocks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sascha Riaz (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: