Table 2.
Description of variables included in the logit models
| Variable | Values in database | Min | Max | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | |||||
| Crime report | 1 = Did report | 0 | 1 | 0.11 | |
| 0 = Did not report | |||||
| Explicative variables [all models] | |||||
| MP Treatment reputation | |||||
| (1) % of people in the area with excellent reviews of contact with the MP | 1–100 [Percentage of respondents in the State in the previous year who indicated they received excellent treatment] | 2.7 | 9.9 | 6.3 | 1.9 |
| (2) % of people in the area with very bad reviews of contact with the MP | 1–100 [Percentage of respondents in the State in the previous year who indicated they received very bad treatment] | 7.8 | 29.4 | 17.2 | 5 |
| (3) % of people in the area who spent less than 1 hour in the MP to report the crime | 1–100 [Percentage of respondents in the State in the previous year who indicated they spent less than 1 h] | 4.6 | 56.8 | 19.8 | 8.2 |
| (4) % of people in the area who spent 3 or more hours in the MP to report the crime | 1–100 [Percentage of respondents in the State in the previous year who indicated they spent 3 or more hours] | 9.5 | 72.7 | 33.4 | 13.4 |
| MP Efficacy reputation | |||||
| (5) % of people in the area who perceive the office as very efficient | 1–100 [Percentage of respondents in the State in the previous year who indicated they perceive the office as very effective] | 0.4 | 17.6 | 7.5 | 3.5 |
| (6) % of people in the area who perceive the office as very inefficient | 1–100 [Percentage of respondents in the State in the previous year who indicated they perceive the office as very ineffective] | 7.5 | 41.1 | 20.9 | 6.4 |
| Personal opinion Do you consider the performance of the MP as effective? | 0 = The MP is not effective | 0 | 1 | 0.41 | |
| 1 = The MP is effective | |||||
| MP Fairness reputation | |||||
| (7) % of people in the area who do trust the MP | 1–100 [Percentage of respondents in the State in the previous year who indicated they perceive the MP as very trustworthy] | 1.5 | 21.3 | 9.5 | 4.2 |
| (8) % of people in the area who do not trust at all the MP | 1–100 [Percentage of respondents in the State in the previous year who indicated they perceive the MP as very untrustworthy] | 12.4 | 48.1 | 25 | 6.8 |
| Personal opinion Do you trust the MP? | 0 = Do not trust the MP | 0 | 1 | 0.39 | |
| 1 = Trust the MP | |||||
| (9) % of people in the area who perceive the MP as corrupt | 1–100 [Percentage of respondents in the State in the previous year who indicated they perceive the MP as corrupt] | 56.6 | 94.9 | 76.1 | 7.7 |
| Personal opinion In your opinion, can the MP be described as corrupt? | 0 = The MP is not corrupt | 0 | 1 | 0.75 | |
| 1 = The MP is corrupt | |||||
| Characteristics of the crime [model 2 and 3] | |||||
| Amount lost as a consequence of the crime | Five groups of reported loss in Mexican pesos, deflected to 2013 values: | ||||
| No loss (base) | |||||
| $1 to 5,000 | |||||
| $5,001 to 10,000 | |||||
| $10,001 to 50,000 | |||||
| More than $ 50,000 | |||||
| Would recognize criminal(s) | 0 = Would not recognize | ||||
| 1 = Would recognize | |||||
| The criminal used violence or physically hurt the victim | 0 = Did not suffer injury | ||||
| 1 = Suffered injury | |||||
| The victim was accompanied | 0 = Was alone | ||||
| 1 = Was accompanied | |||||
| Weapon used by the criminal | Grouped by type of weapon: | ||||
| No weapon (base) | |||||
| Other weapon (knife, tube) | |||||
| Firearm | |||||
| The offender stole… | 0 = Was not stolen | ||||
| (a) Cellphone | 1 = Was stolen | ||||
| (b) Official documents | |||||
| (c) Electronic equipment | |||||
| (d) Jewelry or watch | |||||
| Victim’s characteristics [model 3] | |||||
| Sex | 0 = Woman (base) | ||||
| 1 = Man | |||||
| Educational level | Grouped by educational level: | ||||
| Up to primary school (base) | |||||
| Secondary school | |||||
| High school | |||||
| Undergraduate or graduate | |||||
| Age group | Grouped by 10-year intervals | ||||
| Less than 20 years old (base) | |||||
| 20–29 years old | |||||
| 30–39 years old | |||||
| … | |||||
| More than 80 years old | |||||
| Place of living | Grouped by domain: | ||||
| Urban area (base) | |||||
| Rural area | |||||
| Semi-urban area | |||||
| Feeling of security around the living place | |||||
| Feels safe in his/her home | |||||
| Feels safe in the street | 0 = Feels unsafe | ||||
| 1 = Feels safe | |||||
| Feels safe in the municipality | |||||
| Personal concerns | |||||
| Is concerned about insecurity | |||||
| Is concerned about corruption | |||||
| Is concerned about impunity | |||||
| Is concerned that might be mugged before the end of the year | 0 = Not concerned | ||||
| 1 = Concerned | |||||
| Is concerned that might be hurt before the end of the year | |||||
| Is concerned that might be extorted or kidnapped before the end of the year | |||||
| Survey year | |||||
| Dummy variable for each year | Seven dummy variables |