the other day i posted about some research on the costs of policing in the different swiss cantons and how the more diverse a canton’s population, the more money was spent on policing. the researcher thought this fits pretty nicely with genetic relatedness and inclusive fitness-related behaviors — and so do i.
olave wondered, tho, if more policing might be required in those cantons with greater numbers of immigrants with impulse control issues — like africans, for example. well, because i got
a screw loose curious, i thought i’d check the numbers out.
population stats for switzerland are available from the swiss government here (you didn’t know i was fluent in swissese, did ya? (~_^) ). now, afaict, the numbers aren’t broken down by race, so i used nation-of-origin as a proxy. that’s not exactly right, of course, ’cause a lot of people of african descent immigrating to switzerland might be coming from places like france and germany. but what can a gal do? consider this a rough guide.
so, having said that, i found that there was a correlation of 0.48 between number of african or african-descent immigrants in a canton and the amount of money spent on policing in a canton. that’s not 0, but that’s not that high either:
illus – x-axis = percentage of african immigrant in canton; y-axis = policing costs in millions of swiss francs.
the highest correlations were between total population and total monies spent (0.93) and total foreign population and total monies spend (0.94). but those two things — total population and total foreign population — have a correlation with each other of 0.93, so who knows what’s what here. maybe you just have to spend more money on policing the bigger your population gets and, of course, immigrants usually go to places with high population numbers (i.e. cities). coincidence. or, maybe your high population centers (i.e. cities) have higher crime rates because of all the immigrants there. or, maybe there’s something about population density that requires greater policing (i didn’t check that out … yet). so, who knows?
i wondered if a lot of diversity might impact on policing costs — i.e. if a community has 50 different ethnic groups in it versus 5. do the policing costs go up then?
because i really got a screw loose i counted how many different countries the immigrants in each canton came from. here are the figures i got (don’t ask me why they’re listed in this order — this is the way they popped out of the swiss database!):
Uri = 74
Schwyz = 123
Obwalden = 87
Nidwalden = 87
Glarus = 88
Zug = 132
Solothurn = 145
Schaffhausen = 117
Appenzell Ausserrhoden = 93
Appenzell Innerrhoden = 63
St. Gallen = 151
Graubünden / Grigioni / Grischun = 131
Aargau = 161
Thurgau = 138
Ticino = 159
Vaud = 178
Valais / Wallis = 157
Jura = 117
Zürich = 179
Bern / Berne = 180
Luzern = 150
Fribourg / Freiburg = 160
Basel-Stadt = 159
Basel-Landschaft = 151
Genève = 190
and i get a correlation of 0.65 between number of different countries from which immigrants in a canton hail and amount of money spent on policing in each canton. that’s a stronger coefficient than the researcher’s -0.541 for his similarity index (“number of citizens and proportion of foreigners”) and amount spent on policing in 2009.
here are a couple of nifty charts (i arranged the data on the x-axis backwards so that you could compare these with the researcher’s, rolf kümmerli’s original charts):
illus – x-axis = number of different countries immigrants in cantons come from; y-axis = policing costs in millions of swiss francs.
that crazy outlier is zurich. (presumably you have to spend a lot of money on policing to protect — all that money!) if i take zurich out, the chart looks like this:
illus – x-axis = number of different countries immigrants in cantons (minus zurich) come from; y-axis = policing costs in millions of swiss francs.
the more immigrants you have, the more money you have to spend on policing (or so it seems). the more different types of immigrants you have makes it even more likely you will have to spend more money on policing (or so it seems).
previously: “can we all get along?”
(note: comments do not require an email. more swiss chicks!)