Course Instructor Poverty, economy and the decision to commit criminal acts Most criminological theories have something to say either explicitly or implicitly about the relationship between the decision to engage in crime and economic factors such as poverty and unemployment. Anomie – the breakdown of social norms and values There is a strong tradition within criminology which argues people would conform to prevailing norms and laws but for the stresses and contradictions in their lives: so-called Strain Theory (Hale 2009). That is to say, the individual’s initial ‘standing decision’ is to abide by the social contract but, for reasons beyond their control, they are unable, or feel unable, to do so. • Durkheim Durkheim’s (1893) concept of anomie – literally a state of normlessness – describes a situation in society where rules are breaking down or are confused and, as a result, people do not know what to expect of each other (Hale 2009). For Durkheim, writing at the end of the nineteenth century, anomie arose during periods of rapid social change. Crime can rise in modern industrial societies either because excessive individualism undermines social solidarity or because the likelihood of inefficient regulation is greater during times of rapid modernisation . Challenges to the concept of anomie A challenge to the general theory of anomie as a general explanation of crime is made by Marris (2000). Referring to Farrington (1997) who finds only 6 per cent of families account for 50 per cent of convictions, Marris suggests the problem might not be individuals without norms but rather a group of individuals with the ‘wrong’ norms – that is, ‘anti-society’ collective codes. Marris also points to the rise in crime during the three decades following the Second World War. Relative deprivation A concept related to ‘strain’ is relative deprivation. Strain might occur not because the individual lacks the means to meet their own legitimate needs, but because some other has even more. This effect may arise from two contributing factors: clearly the more some people have, the more another may take from them, legitimately or otherwise. • সিসিসির িম্মাসিত ফেল া ি. ফেবসিয় ভট্টাচার্ ব য ল ি, ‘িরকার গত েশক ধলর িায় একটি ফশাভি িবৃদ্ধির হারলক রক্ষা করলত ফিলরলে। সকন্তু এই ফশাভি িবৃদ্ধির হালরর সিলচ ফর্ অন্ধকারিা রলয়লে, ফর্ অন্ধকারটি রলয়লে ফিটি হল া ফেলশর ফভতলর ফিই তু িায় কর্িংস্থাি য হলে িা, ফিই তু িায় োসরদ্র্য সবলর্াচি হলে িা, োসরদ্র্য সবলর্াচলির হার শ্লথ হলয় এলিলে এবং তৃতীয়ত িবলচলয় বড় ফর্িা ফিখালি ববষর্য বৃদ্ধি ফিলয়লে।’ • অথিীসতরয এর্ি চসরলের কারলে ধিী-গরীলবর ববষর্য বাড়লে বল র্লি কলর সিসিসি। তালের গলবষোয় ফেখা র্ায়, ২০১৬ িাল ির্ালের িবলচলয় সিলচর সেলকর িাাঁচ শতাংলশর আয় ফর্াি আলয়র েশসর্ক ২৩ শতাংশ। ফর্খালি ২০১০ িাল সে েশসর্ক ৭৮ শতাংশ। অিরসেলক উচ্চআলয়র র্ািুলষর আয় আলরা ফবলড়লে। আর এর িকৃষ্ট উোহরে সহলিলব বযাংসকং খাতলক তু ল ধলর সিসিসি। ঋলের িাকা রােনিসতক িুসবধালভাগী একলেসের র্ািুলষর কালে র্ালে। র্ার অসধকাংশই ফখ াসি হলে বল র্লি কলর সিসিসি। বাং ালেশ িসরিংখযাি বুযলরা’র সহলিব অিুর্ায়ী ২০১৩ িাল বাং ালেলশর র্াথাসিেু বাসষক য আয় ১০৫৪ ি ার। অথনিসতক য ববষর্য একটি স্বাভাসবক বযািার র্তক্ষে তা একটি িহিীয় র্াোর র্লধয সবরাে কলর। সকন্তু অনিসতক ফশাষে িদ্ধিয়া এবং েুিীসত র্খি র্াথাচাড়া সেলয় ওলে তখি িাধারে েিগলের আয় ও িম্পে ফশাষক ফেেী ও েুিীসতবােলের হালত কুসক্ষগত হলত থালক। িরকালরর রােস্ব ও উন্নয়ি িীসতর্া া র্সে এলের িহায়ক হয় তলব ববষলর্যর গসত অস্বাভাসবকরূলি বৃদ্ধি িায়। ভালগযান্নয়লির িুলর্াগ ও উন্নয়লির েি ির্ভালব তৃের্ূ ির্ালয় য িা ফি ৌঁোলিার কারলে ধিী- েসরলদ্র্র ববষর্য ির্াগত বাড়লত থালক। একসেলক িলবাচ্চ য ির্ালয়র য ১০ শতাংশ ধিীর আয় ১৯৮৪ িাল ২১ শতাংশ ফথলক ফবলড় ২০১০ িাল ২৭ শতাংশ হলয়লে। অিযসেলক িবসিম্ন য স্তলরর ১০ শতাংশ গরীলবর আয় একই ির্লয় ৪.১৩ শতাংশ ফথলক কলর্ সগলয় ৩.৯৯ শতাংলশ োাঁসড়লয়লে। ফবকারত্ব, খােয ও সচসকৎিা বযয়িহ অিযািয সিতয িলয়ােিীয় িার্গ্রীর অস্বাভাসবক র্ূ য বৃদ্ধি গরীবলক আরও গরীব বাসিলয় সেলয়লে। ির্টষ্টক অথিীসতয ির্ালয় য ফেলশর অথনিসতক য উন্নয়ি িসতভাত হল ও বযটষ্টক ির্ালয় য ধিী আরও ধিী হলে, েসরদ্র্ েসরদ্র্তর হলে। এর র্ূ কারে ধিী-েসরলদ্র্র আলয়র বযবধাি ির্াগত They suggest income inequality ‘fuels’ polarisation of society. Polarisation is caused by alienation/identification, where individuals identify with those similar to themselves and are alienated from those from whom they differ. Obviously there are several ways in which individuals feel they may differ, relative income is merely one such. The effects of relative inequality are likely to be confounded with the effects of unemployment and other labour market effects Why Should Unemployment Increase Crime? The rational choice model of crime predicts that an individual chooses to commit crime when the expected net gain from crime is greater than that from staying out of crime.
If one cannot find a well-paying job in the
legitimate labor market, he may be more inclined to look for a job in the “criminal industry”. This crime-as-an-alternative-job explanation works the best for financially motivated crimes, but it can be applied to other types of crime as well. If you already have a well-paying and respectable job, you have more to lose when committing a crime and may think twice before actually carrying out the crime. • This reasoning suggests that crime should fall during economic booms (when more well-paying legitimate jobs are available), and increase during recessions. How can we reconcile this theoretical prediction with observed data on crime and unemployment, where no such relationship is present? First, monetary gains and losses are not the only factor in one’s criminal decision. Other non- monetary factors, such as the sense of guilt and shame upon committing a crime, should also be just as relevant, if not more, to one’s criminal decision.
This may be why very few people would actually
consider crime as an alternative “work” when they lose their legitimate jobs. Most would look for help from their families, friends, and governments instead. Relatedly, crime tends to be heavily concentrated among a small group of repeat offenders. For example, criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin analyzed criminal careers of approximately 10,000 boys born in Philadelphia in 1945 and found that only 6 percent of the boys accounted for more than 60 percent of all crimes committed. For most of the population who have not committed any crime at all, it is unlikely that temporary economic hardships will suddenly cause them to consider making money from crime. On the other hand, for the small group of high-risk individuals, adverse economic conditions may still be an important determinant of the criminal decision. Economists Eric Gould, Bruce Weinberg, and David Mustard studied the relationship between crime rates and labor market conditions for young, unskilled American men (a demographic group with high offending rates). Based on the data between 1980s and 1990s, they find that young, unskilled men’s wage and employment rates are significant predictors of both violent and property crime rates. Similar findings are reported from other countries as well. Using data from England and Wales between 1975 and 1996, economists Stephen Machin and Costas Meghir analyzed the effect of wage rates for unskilled workers on crime. Economist Paolo Buonanno also investigated the relationship between unemployment rates for young males and crime in Italy between 1993 and 2002. Both studies conclude that labor market conditions for young, male, unskilled workers are significant predictors of crime rates.