Merton’s “Social Structure and Anomie” seeks to explain how “socio-cultural” influences exert “definite pressures” to engage in non-conformity. Despite having a significant influence, few studies have assessed the degree to which Merton’s propositions explain cross-national variation in levels of crime. Using data on national levels of homicide, data from the World Values Survey, and other structural controls, the present study assesses the degree to which deinstitutionalization, demoralization, and blocked opportunity interact to explain crime cross-nationally. Results provide a high degree of support for Merton’s assertion that societal types characterized by relatively high levels of materialism and/or demoralization or deinstitutionalization suffer from higher levels of homicide. However, there is less support for Merton’s assertion that inequality interacts with various societal patterns of means/ends integration in a meaningful way. Findings and implications for the utility of classical anomie as a general macro-level theory are discussed.
AltheimerI. (2007). Assessing the relevance of ethnic heterogeneity as a predictor of homicide at the cross-national level. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 31, 1-20.
2.
AltheimerI. (2008). Social support, ethnic heterogeneity, and homicide: A cross-national approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 103-114.
3.
AntonoccioO.TittleC. (2007). A cross-national test of Bonger’s theory of criminality and economic conditions. Criminology, 45, 925-958.
4.
BarberN. (2000). The sex ratio as a predictor of cross-national variation in violent crime. Cross-Cultural Research, 34(3), 264-282.
5.
BaumerE. (2007). Untangling research puzzles in Merton’s multilevel anomie theory. Theoretical Criminology, 11, 63-93.
6.
BaumerE.GustafsonR. (2007). Social organization and instrumental crime: Assessing the empirical validity of classic and contemporary anomie theories. Criminology, 45, 617-663.
7.
BennettR. (1991). Development and crime: A cross-national, time-series analysis of competing models. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 343-363.
8.
BennettR.BasiotisP. (1991). Structural correlates of juvenile property crime: A cross-national, time-series analysis. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 28, 262-287.
9.
BernardT. (1987). Testing structural strain theories. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 24, 262-280.
10.
BjerregaardB.CochranJ. (2008a). Want amid plenty: Developing and testing a cross-national measure of anomie. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 2, 182-193.
11.
BjerregaardB.CochranJ. (2008b). A cross-national test of institutional anomie theory: Do the strength of other social institutions mediate or moderate the effects of the economy on the rate of crime?Western Criminology Review, 9(1), 31-48.
12.
BlauJ.BlauP. (1982). The cost of inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent crime. American Sociological Review, 114-129.
13.
BlauP. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York, NY: Free Press.
CaoL. (2004). Is American society more anomic? A test of Merton’s theory with cross-national data. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 28, 15-31.
16.
CaoL. (2007). Returning to normality: Anomie and crime in China. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 40-51.
17.
ChamlinM.CochranJ. (2005). Ascribed economic inequality and homicide among modern societies: Toward the development of a cross-national theory. Homicide Studies, 9, 3-29.
ChamlinM.SandersB. (2013). Falsifying Merton’s macro-level anomie theory of profit-motivated crime: A research note. Deviant Behavior, 34, 961-972.
20.
CochranJ.BjerregaardB. (2012). Structural anomie and crime: A cross-national test. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 203-217.
21.
D’UngerA.LandK.McCallP.NaginD. (1998). How many latent classes of delinquent/criminal careers? Results from mixed Poisson regression analyses. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1593-1630.
22.
GardnerW.MulveyE.ShawE. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 392-404.
23.
GartnerR. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review, 55, 92-106.
24.
GartnerR.ParkerR. (1990). Cross-national evidence on homicide and age structure of the population. Social Forces, 69, 351-371.
25.
GuttentagM.SecordP. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
HilbeJ. (2011). Negative binomial regression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
InglehartR.BakerW. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the presence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65, 19-51.
28.
KarstedtS. (2001). Comparing cultures, comparing crime: Challenges, prospects and problems for a global criminology. Crime, Law and Social Change, 36, 285-308.
29.
KimS.PridemoreW. (2005). Social change, institutional anomie and serious property crime in transitional Russia. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 81-97.
30.
KornhauserR. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
KrohnM. (1976). Inequality, unemployment and crime. The Sociological Quarterly, 17, 303-313.
32.
LaFreeG. (1999). A summary and review of cross-national comparative studies of homicide. In SmithM.ZahnM. (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
LaFreeG.DrassK. (2002). Counting crime booms among nations: Evidence for homicide victimization rates, 1956 to 1998. Criminology, 40, 769-800.
34.
LandK.McCallP.NaginD. (1996). A comparison of Poisson, negative binomial, and semiparametric mixed Poisson regression models with empirical applications to criminal careers data. Sociological Methods & Research, 24, 387-442.
35.
LeeM.OuseyG. (2001). Size matters. The Sociological Quarterly, 42, 581-602.
36.
LiuJ. (2005). Crime patterns during the market transition in China. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 613-633.
37.
LongJ. (1997). Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences: Vol. 7: Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
MaumeM.LeeM. (2003). Social institutions and violence: A sub-national test of institutional anomie theory. Criminology, 41, 1137-1172.
39.
McCullaghP.NelderJ. (1989). Generalized linear models (2nd ed.). London, England: Chapman and Hall.
40.
MertonR. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-682.
41.
MertonR. (1949). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
42.
MertonR. (1957). Social theory and social structure (Rev. enlarged ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
43.
MertonR. (1964). Anomie, anomia, and social interaction: Contexts of deviant behavior. In ClinardM. (Ed.), Anomie and deviant behavior (pp. 213-242). New York, NY: The Free Press.
44.
MertonR. (1968). Social theory and social structure (Rev. enlarged ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
45.
MessnerS. (1982). Poverty, inequality, and the urban homicide rate. Criminology, 20, 103-115.
46.
MessnerS. (1986). Modernization, structural characteristics, and societal rates of crime: An application of Blau’s macrosociological theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 27, 27-41.
47.
MessnerS. (1988). Merton’s social structure and anomie: The road not taken. Deviant Behavior, 9, 33-53.
48.
MessnerS.RosenfeldR. (1994). Crime and the American dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
49.
MessnerS.RosenfeldR. (1997). Political restraint, market and levels of criminal homicide: A cross-national application of institutional-anomie theory. Social Forces, 75, 1393-1416.
50.
MessnerS.RosenfeldR. (2007). Crime and the American dream (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
51.
MessnerS.SampsonR. (1991). The sex ratio, family disruption, and rates of violent crime: The paradox of the demographic structure. Social Forces, 69, 693-713.
52.
MessnerS.ThomeH.RosenfeldR. (2008). Institutions, anomie, and violent crime: Clarifying and elaborating institutional-anomie theory. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 2, 163-181.
53.
NeapolitanJ. (1997). Cross-national crime: A research review and sourcebook. Westport, CO: Greenwood Press.
54.
NivetteA. (2011). Cross-national predictors of crime: A meta-analysis. Homicide Studies, 15, 103-131.
55.
O’BrienR. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690.
56.
OsgoodD. (2000). Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 21-43.
57.
OsgoodD.ChambersJ. (2000). Social disorganization outside the metropolis: An analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology, 38, 81-116.
58.
PampelF.GartnerR. (1995). Age structure, socio-political institutions, and national homicide rates. European Sociological Review, 11, 243-260.
59.
PrattT.CullenF. (2005). Assessing the macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta analysis. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (vol. 32, pp. 373-450). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60.
PrattT.GodseyT. (2003). Social support, inequality, and homicide: A cross-national test of an integrated theoretical model. Criminology, 41, 611-643.
61.
PridemoreW. (2008). A methodological addition to the cross-national empirical literature on social structure and homicide: A first test of the poverty-homicide thesis. Criminology, 46, 133-154.
62.
PridemoreW. (2011). Poverty matters: A reassessment of the inequality-homicide relationship in cross-national studies. The British Journal of Criminology, 51, 739-772.
63.
SavolainenJ. (2000). Inequality, welfare state, and homicide: Further support for the institutional anomie theory. Criminology, 38, 1021-1042.
64.
SchachtR.RauchK.Borgerhoff MulderM. (2014). Too many men: The violence problem?Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 214-222.
65.
SchaibleL.HughesL. (2011). Crime, shame, reintegration and cross-national homicide: A partial test of reintegrative shaming theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 104-131.
66.
SouthS.MessnerS. (1987). The sex ratio and women’s involvement in crime: A cross-national analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 28, 171-188.
67.
StamatelJ. (2009). Correlates of national-level homicide variation in post-communist East-Central Europe. Social Forces, 87, 1423-1448.
68.
StultsB.BaumerP. (2008). Assessing the relevance of anomie theory for explaining spatial variation in lethal criminal violence: An aggregate-level analysis of homicide within the United States. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 2, 215-247.
69.
ThorlindssonT.BernburgJ. (2004). Durkheim’s theory of social order and deviance: A multi-level test. European Sociological Review, 20, 271-285.
70.
TukeyJ. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
71.
WooldridgeJ. (1997). Quasi-likelihood methods for count data. Handbook of Applied Econometrics, 2, 352-406.
72.
World Values Survey. (2009). World Value Survey 1981-2008 official aggregate (World Values Survey Association, v.20090902). Madrid, Spain: ASEP/JDS Data Archive [Aggregate File Producer]. Available from www.worldvaluessurvey.org
73.
ZhaoL. (2008). Anomie theory and crime in transitional China. International Criminal Justice Review, 18, 137-157.
74.
ZhaoR.CaoL. (2010). Social change and anomie: A cross-national study. Social Forces, 88, 1209-1230.
