Crime and Social OrderSeptember 7, 2004

Social orderIs high when compliance with ‘mainstream’ norms and laws is highHence, crime social disorder

And crime rates are an empirical indicator of social order

A definition of crimeActs of force or fraud undertaken in pursuit of self-interest (Gottfredson and Hirschi)

Key question about crimeNot – ‘why do people do it?’But – why don’t they do it?’

Life offers a vast canvas of temptation because deviance (acts that contravene mainstream norms) provides rewards for agents

General answerRational people are induced to comply with mainstream norms (and not engage in crime) when doing so provides them with greater utility/benefit When does this occur?

When people are dependent on groups that mandate compliance to (at least some) mainstream norms

ExamplesFamilies

Ex: married men and women are much less likely to have been picked up by the police than are people who have never been married or are currently divorced or separated (Stark 199)

Social networksThe more young people care about others, the less likely they are to commit delinquent acts (Hirschi 1969)

This also explains the age/crime relationship

Examples, cont’d Firms

Employers are unlikely to hire ex-convicts and likely to fire employees who engage in criminal acts

SchoolsEnforce sanctions against cheaters

NeighborhoodsEnforce sanctions against people who don’t mow their lawns, paint their houses, etc.

Group solidarity and crimeWhy does group membership tend to deter crime?

AssumptionPeople either join groups -- or remain in ones they are born into -- because the cost of their participation is less than the benefit of membership

Benefit of group membership IAccess to jointly-produced goods

Benefits of membershipPoker groupsBasketball teamsSchoolsFirmsChurches Country clubs

Dependence on groupsVaries according to

The absolute value of the goods produced by the group

The higher the value, the greater the dependence

Availability of alternative sources of benefit

The greater the availability, the less the dependence on any one group

Source of group benefitsCompliance with production rules

Membership in every kind of group entails a cost – compliance with production rules

Production rulesPoker groupsBasketball teamsSchoolsFirmsChurches Etc.

Consequences of free riding in groups

Underproduction of joint goods unravelling of the group

Why do members comply with production rules?

Why not free ride?They will free ride if they can get away with itFree riding deterred if group has sufficient

Monitoring capacityVisibility

Sanctioning capacityUltimate sanction = expulsion from the group

Needs for monitoring/sanctioning diminishes as dependence on the group increases

Cross-national variations in crime

USA = high crime rate Japan = lowest crime rate among all advanced societies

What explains the variation?

Confucianism?S. Korea and China have much higher crime rates than Japan

Japanese society is organized in ways that maximize the impact of local group solidarity on each individual (Hechter and Kanazawa 1993)

Dependence in JapanSchools

Students dependent on school for access to universities, jobs (vs. USA)

No transfersNo second chances

FirmsEmployees highly dependent on employers (vs. USA)

Little interfirm mobilityLifetime employmentCompany dorms, etc.

Visibility in JapanFamily

Little space‘Rooms’ separated by screens/partitions less than 1/10th the thickness of walls in American homes

SchoolStudents under prolonged supervision –

No individual activitiesNo free periodsNo library timeNo leaving the classroom for any reasonLocker and body searches commonLong school hoursExtensive homework

Visibility, cont’dNeighborhood

Local neighborhood controls keep watch for students who should be at home, paying “particular attention to dark, secluded patches of shrubbery, back alleys and [other places] where adolescents might hope to hang out unnoticed (Bestor 1989).”

Visibility, cont’dFirm

Most Japanese offices are ‘open plan’Single workers often required to live in dormsWorkers expected to socialize together after hours

Dependence and visibility in the USA

Much lower than Japan with respect to

SchoolNeighborhoodFirm

Connection between local and social order

In Japan, the state free rides on the control activities of local groups

Result: high social order produced via mechanisms that do not require high tax revenues

HypothesesAbout crime in Italy

General:Lower than US but higher than JapanDependence on groups

Family: individuals live at home for a long time, esp. males; family-based firms; also basis of social networksSocial networks: clientelistic; patrimonial; low geographic mobilityFirms: family-based; small-medium; industrial clustersSchools: no opinions allowed (high enforcement of norms)Neighborhoods: know their neighbors; extension of family; stable (low mobility)

Hypotheses, contMonitoring and sanctioning

Police monitoring is highFamilies are providing monitoring and sanctioningNeighborhoods providing monitoring and sanctioningChurch might exert influence through moral standardsSchool is offering consistent, centrally-negotiated, normsCorruption and tax evasion suggests low monitoring and sanctioning

VisibilityInterpret signals – increased by homogeneity (higher in Italy than in the US, but lower than in Japan)

Total crimes per 1000

US 82Italy 38

Comparative crime statsAssaults US 7.7 Italy0.5Robberies US 1.41 Italy 0.65Murders US 0.04 Italy 0.01Prisoners US 7.15 Italy0.98Rapes US 0.3 Italy 0.04

More comparative stats

Drug-related deaths/1 millUS 37Italy19

Italian peculiarityIn Milan, crime rates decrease by 50% in August!

Conclusion

A society that fosters highly solidary social groups is likely to have lower rates of individual crime, but it is likely to promote collectivist crime, that is, crime in service of solidary groups.

Friday: Professor Varese on corruption and the Mafia.