As you can see, there is mixed evidence regarding the link between crime and unemployment. Chiricos (1987) commented on this by saying it “created a consensus of doubt about the nature and existence of a causal link between unemployment and crime”. Chiricos later changed his position after reviewing further evidence and concluded that it should be argued that “a positive, frequently significant unemployment-crime relationship” exists (1987, p. 203). To explain the supposed link between unemployment and crime, some have pointed to capitalism and examples such as the American Dream (Downes, 1995, p. 1). Downes stated that the American Dream provides many with “insatiable aspirations” and that capitalism in general promotes unachievable goals. Strain theory can be linked with this view as well as other forms of inequality. Strain theory argues that people will often commit crimes when they are unable to achieve their goals legally (Agnew, 2005). Merton (1938) stated that this could be witnessed in the US as lower-class individuals are forced into crime because their lack of a good education and good jobs prevents them from achieving their goals legitimately.
The disparity in income is another source of inequality that has been viewed as having a potential link with crime. The Social Exclusion Unit (2002) found that 72% of the UK prison population had been in receipt of state benefits immediately before being imprisoned compared with only 13.7% of the general population. This statistic seems to show that those with less or no income are more likely to commit crime. However as with the data on unemployment and crime, research has turned up mixed results. A US study by Danziger and Wheeler (1975) revealed that in the 53 largest metropolitan areas, robbery and burglary rates increased with income inequality. On the other hand Rosenfeld (1986), who conducted similar research in 125 metropolitan areas in the US, found no relationship between income inequality and robbery. Other studies such as Fowles and Merva (1996) found no link between property crime and wage inequality however a positive link between wage inequality and murder/non-negligent manslaughter was discovered in the US.
A study in the UK (Witt, Clarke, & Fielding, 1998) also found a positive relationship between wage inequality and robbery, other theft, theft from vehicle and burglary.
As with the research on unemployment, this research creates doubt over whether there is a causal link between income inequality and crime however criminological theory can still be used to support the idea that there is a link. Yet again, strain theory suggests that those who earn less may engage in criminal activity to get what they want, however another strand of strain theory, the idea of ‘relative deprivation’, may also explain a possible link. The theory of relative deprivation suggests that some people may perceive themselves as disadvantaged and harbour feelings of injustice because those they compare themselves to have more than them. This can then lead to envy and a desire for a higher income which can then cause them to commit an offence to meet this desire (Box, 1987, p. 41) . Relative deprivation differs from the ‘anomie’ strand of strain theory as legitimate ways of achieving goals are still available, unlike in anomie theory where they have been reduced or closed off. It is the feelings of injustice and the idea that they are being marginalised that are associated with relative deprivation and can lead to crime. The theory of relative deprivation can often be applied to the young unemployed and ethnic minorities (Box, 1987, p. 42).
Another theory which can be used to explain the relationship between crime and inequality is control theory. Control theory suggests that the reason most people don’t engage in crime is because of social controls that keep them in check and that when these controls break down or do not affect an individual, then they may commit crime. Control theory states that parents, schools, jobs and peers are important institutions that affect the level of restraint on an individual (Rankin & Kern, 2005, p. 393). This suggests that people from criminal backgrounds or areas where they are likely to become associated with criminals are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour. This can be linked with inequality as people who are brought up in poorer areas that have high unemployment could be more likely to end up poor and unemployed themselves.
Inequality can also cause a breakdown of some of the institutions involved in control theory which can then cause a reduction in the amount of control on an individual. Unemployment and poverty can lead to a weakening of the social bonds within a family. Tension among the family can also increase which can lead to crimes such as domestic and child abuse and divorce may also occur (Box, 1987, pp. 44-45). A divorce often worsens the situation as 53% of lone mother headed households lived in poverty in 2001/02 compared to 20% of couple households with dependent children (Grover, 2008). The fact that women also earn less than men on average (Equal Oppurtunities Commission, 2006, p. 19) makes it harder to climb out of poverty. These factors can lead to a further breakdown of control which can cause deviance and rebellious behaviour in children (Box, 1987, p. 45). This can then lead to children refusing to attend or being expelled from schools. A lack of education can prove serious as 49% of the male and 33% of the female prison population were expelled from school, as well as 52% of male and 71% of female prisoners not having any educational qualifications (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). A poor education can also hinder future employment prospects, and can therefore lead to further poverty.
The final theory that I am examining is conflict theory which is often associated with Marx because of his ideas on the conflict between different social classes. Marx theorised that capitalism would gradually lead to wealth being concentrated within smaller and smaller groups, and that the system also created a class of people who were unable to get work and therefore turned to crime. Marx also stated that the law only protects the ruling elite, not the interests of all citizens. (Newburn, 2007, p. 247).
Willem Bonger used the work of Marx and Engels within his criminological research and argued that poverty is used within capitalism to force the working classes to work for the ruling elite (Newburn, 2007, p. 248). Bonger also shared Marx’s view that the law only served the dominant class and this was supported by Edwin Sutherland who argued that large corporations were often involved in acts that should be criminal, but the acts are not criminalised because of the political and economic influence of said corporations. Modern examples of this often involve the use of legal loopholes to evade tax. These laws could be made tighter but aren’t and some may say this is because of the influence large businesses and the dominant class have over politics. Overall, conflict theory can be used to explain why it is often the lower classes that are associated with crime and why the upper, or dominant classes, remain unpunished for their criminal acts.
The aim of this essay was to examine the key debates surrounding the relationship between crime and inequality. This essay has highlighted some of the different sources of inequality, such as unemployment and education, and it have also looked at some of the research into the relationship between inequality and crime. The essay also explained some of the different theories and debates that can be used to try and explain how crime and inequality are linked, with examples including strain theory and the idea of class conflict within society. These theories and ideas do help to provide a link with crime and inequality however it seems the empirical evidence to support a causal link can, at times, be lacking. The reasons behind this are that inequality is probably one of many different factors, and that different social groups, societies and individuals are affected in different ways by inequality.
Agnew, R. (2005). Strain Theory. In E. McLaughlin, & J. Muncie, The SAGE Dictionary of Criminology 2nd Edition (pp. 421-423). London: SAGE Publications.
Allen, E. & Steffensmeier, D. (1989). Youth Underemployment and Property Crime: Differential Effects of Job Availability and Job Quality on Juvenile and Young Adult Arrest Rates. American Sociological Review, 54 .
Box, S. (1987). Recession, Crime and Punishment. London: The Macmillan Press.
Cantor, D. & Land, K. C. (1985). Unemployment and Crime Rates in the Post-World War II United States: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. American Sociological Review, 50 , 317-332.
Chiricos, T. G. (1987). Rates of Crime and unemployment: An analysis of Aggregate Research Evidence. Social Problems, 34 , 187-212.
Danziger, S. & Wheeler, D. (1975). The Economics of Crime: Punishment of Income Redistibution. Review of Social Economy, 33 , 113-31.
Downes, D. (1995, July 18). Crime and Inequality: Current Issues in Research and Public Debate. Retrieved December 11, 2010, from British Society of Criminology: http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume1/014.pdf
Equal Oppurtunities Commission. (2006). Facts About Women and Men in Great Britain. Manchester: Equal Oppurtunities Commission.
Fowles, R. & Merva, M. (1996). Wage Inequality and Criminal Activity: An Extreme Bounds Analysis for the United States. Criminology, 34, 163-182.
Grover, C. (2008). Crime and Inequality [Electronic Version]. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Hale, C., & Sabbagh, D. (1991). Testing the Relationship Between Unemployment and Crime: A Methodological Comment and Empirical Analysis Using Time Series Data From England and Wales. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28 , 400-417.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2005). The Communist Manifesto [Electronic Version]. Public Domain Books.
Merton, R. (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3 , 672-82.
Newburn, T. (2007). Criminology. Cullompton: Willan.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Rankin, J., & Kern, R. (2005). Social Control Theory. In E. McLaughlin, & J. Munice, The SAGE Dictionary of Criminology 2nd Edition (pp. 393-395). London: SAGE Publications.
Rosenfeld, R. (1986). Urban Crime Rates: Effects of Inequality, Welfare, Dependency, Region and Race. In J. Byrne, & R. Sampson (Eds), The Social Ecology of Crime (pp. 25-46). New York: Springer.
Social Exclusion Unit. (2002). Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners. London: Social Exclusion Unit.
Witt, R., Clarke, A. & Field, N. (1999). Crime and Economic Activity. British Journal of Criminology, 39 , 391-400.
Witt, R., Clarke, A. & Fielding, N. (1998). Crime, Earnings, Inequality and Unemployment in England and Wales. Applied Economics Letters, 5 , 265-267.
