David R. Greenberg wrote a paper on the time series analysis of crime rates discussing recent developments in statistical methods for time series modeling and analysis, as well as substantive and methodological issues in the time series analysis of crime rates. Within the paper Greenberg critiqued the Cantor and Land (C-L) conceptual model of transient relationships between aggregate unemployment and crime rate fluctuations. This article was a response by Cantor and Land to Greenberg’s critique and focused on five key points where the critique seemed to diverge from the theoretical and empirical specifications developed within their work. First, there was an inaccuracy in the interpretation of the way C-L used the crime opportunity and crime motivation concepts. Second, C-L rejected Greenberg’s (2001) Eq. (1) as a theoretical representation of the processes of interest, specifying crime opportunity and crime motivation effects on crimes were formulated at the level of individuals. This was seen as not adequately representing the theoretical arguments of C-L. In addition, the accusation that the equations Land based his conclusions on lead to absurd implications was rejected. The third point recalled the substantive context from which the C-L investigation began in the mid-1980's. Fourth, concerns were addressed regarding the time series properties of the C-L model and the aggregate unemployment and crime rates used in its estimation. The fifth and final point were comments by Greenberg (2001) on the limitations of aggregate time series research designs for testing the behavioral hypotheses used to generate expected relationships between aggregate unemployment and crime rates. The ultimate goal for the C-L model was to provide a theoretically meaningful discussion of the relationship between unemployment rates and crime rates and the complications that may lead to inconsistent findings in the literature. References