Crime is an anti-social blight on communities that increases the cost of doing business, including for entrepreneurs. Drawing on Australian longitudinal data, this study examines the links between crime rates and the propensity for entrepreneurship within communities. We do so by matching propensity for entrepreneurship with types of crime found at the community level where crime occurs. We find that higher total crime rates, crimes against the person and property crime, significantly lower the propensity for entrepreneurship in communities. We also show that the core facets of community social capital – trust, membership in voluntary organizations and support and cooperation – mediate this relationship.

Executive summary

We comprehensively examine whether higher community crime rates – crime on people and crime on property – cause lower rates of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship research extensively examines how gaining social capital, defined as the social resources one gains within one's community, promotes entrepreneurship. This study considers whether a pervasive community dynamic in crime impedes entrepreneurship. Specifically, we show that the two main kinds of crime – people and property – inhibit entrepreneurship.

We show the facets of community social capital that mediate the relationship between crime and entrepreneurship. We inform the role of community-based social capital in promoting entrepreneurship (Kwon et al., 2013) by considering how higher crime lowers social capital and in turn entrepreneurship. We show that core facets of relational social capital – trust, voluntary membership in community bodies, support, and cooperation – mediate the relationship between crime and entrepreneurship. Likewise, communities with more robust reserves of social capital are better able to withstand crime and promote entrepreneurship.

Examining the link between crime and entrepreneurship allows us to contribute to the literature on entrepreneurship and social capital. We discuss the various ways in which crime diminishes social capital to shape entrepreneurship. In our framework that is predicated on theory on community social capital, crime creates distrust because it causes citizens to be wearier and more suspicious of each other, impeding sharing of ideas and knowledge for ventures. Crime impedes the efficacy and membership of community-based organizations that allow entrepreneurs to network. Crime reduces the support available for founders to start and sustain businesses in focal communities, as individuals seek opportunities and resources outside their communities. Crime diminishes the extent to which people take pride in and identify with their communities, as evidenced by voluntary membership in community organizations. Crime reduces collaboration because it leads to self-protective behaviors, including flight from high-crime communities, that hinder norms of reciprocity. Crime reduces cooperation as criminals are more likely to resort to coercion, as enforced by monitoring and violence, to solve business problems.

Findings rely on a comprehensive database of crime rates across Australian postcodes. Crime is typically a localized phenomenon – it affects business outcomes in local communities. We obtain community-level crime rates from each Australian state and territory police force or relevant government agencies and match these data with entrepreneurship rates by postcode. Our primary identification strategy follows Dustmann and Fasani (2016), who estimate the effect of local area crime on mental health in the United Kingdom (UK). This identification strategy removes the effects of residential sorting and correlates crime with time-varying unobserved entrepreneurship determinants if there is no endogenous migration from local crime. The main findings are robust to instrumenting for local area crime to which movers are exposed and for historical abortion rates in the state or territory where the individual lives, as well as a number of other approaches to obtaining causal inference.

The article holds considerable practical relevance for policymakers seeking to promote community entrepreneurship. Our study is highly relevant to community leaders and policymakers working to boost local entrepreneurship. Findings strongly suggest that efforts to reduce crime are a primary mechanism to protect social capital within communities and, therefore, entrepreneurship. Policy initiatives dedicated to creating and expanding social ventures would a) boost entrepreneurship and social capital and b) mitigate the detrimental effects of crime on entrepreneurship (Wry and York, 2017).

中文翻译：

---

犯罪、社区社会资本和企业家精神：来自澳大利亚社区的证据

犯罪是对社区的一种反社会破坏，它增加了经商成本，包括企业家的成本。本研究利用澳大利亚的纵向数据，检验了犯罪率与社区内创业倾向之间的联系。为此，我们将创业倾向与发生犯罪的社区层面发现的犯罪类型相匹配。我们发现，较高的总犯罪率、针对人身和财产的犯罪会显着降低社区的创业倾向。我们还表明，社区社会资本的核心方面——信任、志愿组织的成员资格以及支持与合作——调节了这种关系。

执行摘要

我们全面检查较高的社区犯罪率（针对人的犯罪和针对财产的犯罪）是否会导致较低的创业率。创业研究广泛考察了获得社会资本（定义为一个人在社区内获得的社会资源）如何促进创业。这项研究考虑了犯罪中普遍存在的社区动态是否会阻碍创业。具体来说，我们表明两种主要的犯罪——人员和财产——抑制了创业。

我们展示了调节犯罪与创业之间关系的社区社会资本的各个方面。我们通过考虑更高的犯罪率如何降低社会资本进而降低创业精神来告知基于社区的社会资本在促进创业方面的作用（Kwon 等人，2013 年）。我们表明，关系社会资本的核心方面——信任、自愿加入社区机构、支持和合作——调节犯罪与创业之间的关系。同样，拥有更强大社会资本储备的社区能够更好地抵御犯罪和促进创业。

检查犯罪与创业之间的联系使我们能够为关于创业和社会资本的文献做出贡献。我们讨论了犯罪减少社会资本以塑造企业家精神的各种方式。在我们以社区社会资本理论为基础的框架中，犯罪会造成不信任，因为它会使公民更加厌倦和相互怀疑，从而阻碍企业分享想法和知识。犯罪阻碍了允许企业家建立网络的社区组织的效力和成员资格。随着个人在社区外寻找机会和资源，犯罪减少了创始人在焦点社区开办和维持企业的可用支持。犯罪削弱了人们对社区的自豪感和认同感，自愿加入社区组织就证明了这一点。犯罪会减少协作，因为它会导致自我保护行为，包括逃离高犯罪率社区，这阻碍了互惠规范。犯罪减少了合作，因为犯罪分子更有可能诉诸强制手段（通过监控和暴力实施）来解决业务问题。

调查结果依赖于澳大利亚邮政编码的犯罪率综合数据库。犯罪通常是一种局部现象——它会影响当地社区的商业成果。我们从澳大利亚各州和地区的警察部队或相关政府机构获取社区层面的犯罪率，并将这些数据与按邮政编码划分的创业率进行匹配。我们的主要识别策略遵循 Dustmann 和 Fasani（2016 年），他们估计了英国 (UK) 局部地区犯罪对心理健康的影响。如果当地犯罪没有内生迁移，这种识别策略消除了住宅分类的影响，并将犯罪与随时间变化的未观察到的创业决定因素相关联。主要研究结果对于检测搬家者所面临的当地犯罪以及个人居住的州或地区的历史堕胎率是有力的，

这篇文章对寻求促进社区创业的决策者具有相当大的实际意义。我们的研究与致力于促进当地创业的社区领袖和政策制定者高度相关。调查结果强烈表明，减少犯罪的努力是保护社区内社会资本的主要机制，因此也是保护创业精神的主要机制。致力于创建和扩大社会企业的政策举措将 a) 促进创业和社会资本，以及 b) 减轻犯罪对创业的不利影响（Wry 和 York，2017 年）。