Extending the Anomie Tradition

Abstract

This study advances anomie theory by examining the effect of anomic societal conditions and indicators of globalization on national homicide rates. Globalization may generate anomie in two ways: (a) via rapid change and (b) by contributing to economic dominance that may lead to a chronic state of anomie. To assess the role of globalization, measures of international trade are examined in a model of national homicide rates. Results show that net investment has a positive effect on rates of homicide across several models, suggesting that globalization and economic dominance aggravate homicide.

Keywords

homicide cross-national globalization anomie trade

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baumer

E. P.

Gustafson

(2007). Social organization and instrumental crime: Assessing the empirical validity of classic and contemporary anomie theories. Criminology, 45, 617-663.

Bjerregaard

Cochran

J. K.

(2008). Want amid plenty: Developing and testing a cross-national measure of anomie. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 2, 182-193.

Bornschier

Chase-Dunn

Rubinson

(1978). Cross-national evidence of the effects of foreign investment and aid on economic growth and inequality: A survey of findings and a reanalysis. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 651-683.

Boughton

J. M.

(2001). The silent revolution: The International Monetary Fund 1979-1989. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

Brady

Denniston

(2006). Economic globalization, industrialization, and deindustrialization in affluent democracies. Social Forces, 85, 297-329.

Brady

Seeleib-Kaiser

Beckfield

(2005). Economic globalization and the welfare state in affluent democracies, 1975-2001. American Sociological Review, 70, 921-948.

Chamlin

M. B.

Cochran

J. K.

(1995). Assessing Messner and Rosenfeld’s institutional anomie theory: A partial test. Criminology, 33, 411-419.

Chamlin

M. B.

Cochran

J. K.

(2006). Economic inequality, legitimacy, and cross-national homicide rates. Homicide Studies, 10, 231-252.

Chamlin

M. B.

Cochran

J. K.

(2007). An evaluation of the assumptions that underlie institutional anomie theory. Theoretical Criminology, 11, 39-61.

10.

Chase-Dunn

(1975). The effects of international economic dependence on development and inequality: A cross-national study. American Sociological Review, 40, 720-738.

11.

Cochran

J. K.

Bjerregaard

(2012). Structural anomie and crime: A cross-national test. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 203-217.

12.

Durkheim

(1951). Suicide. London, England: Routledge.

13.

Esping-Andersen

(1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

14.

Fisher

J. E.

Mason

R. L.

(1981). The analysis of multicollinear data in criminology. In Fox

J. A.

(Ed.), Methods in quantitative criminology (pp. 99-125). New York, NY: Academic Press.

15.

Gilpin

(2001). Global political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

16.

Guillen

M. F.

(2001). Is globalization civilizing, destructive, or feeble? A critique of five key debates in the social science literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235-260.

17.

Gurr

T. R.

Scarritt

J. R.

(1989). Minorities at risk: A global study. Human Rights Quarterly, 11, 375-405.

18.

Huber

Ragin

Stephens

J. D.

Brady

Beckfield

(2004). Comparative welfare states data set. Retrieved from http://www.nsd.uib.no/macrodataguide/set.html?id=8&sub=1

19.

Kentor

Boswell

(2003). Foreign capital dependence and development: A new direction. American Sociological Review, 68, 303-313.

20.

LaFree

(1999). A summary and review of cross-national comparative studies of homicide. In Smith

M. D.

Zahn

M. A.

(Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 125-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Maume

M. O.

Lee

M. R.

(2003). Social institutions and violence: A sub-national test of institutional anomie theory. Criminology, 41, 1137-1172.

22.

Merton

R. K.

(1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-682.

23.

Messner

S. F.

Rosenfeld

(1997). Political restraint of the market and levels of criminal homicide: A cross-national application of institutional-anomie theory. Social Forces, 75, 1393-1416.

24.

Messner

S. F.

Rosenfeld

(2000). Market dominance, crime, and globalization. In Karstedt

Bussman

K. D.

(Eds.), Social dynamics of crime and control: New theories for a world in transition (pp. 13-26). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.

25.

Messner

S. F.

Rosenfeld

(2007). Crime and the American dream (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

26.

Neapolitan

J. L.

(1994). Cross-national variation in homicides: The case of Latin America. International Criminal Justice Review, 4, 4-22.

27.

Neter

Kutner

M. H.

Nachtsheim

C. J.

Wassermann

(1996). Applied linear statistics models (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

28.

Nivette

A. E.

(2011). Cross-national predictors of crime: A meta-analysis. Homicide Studies, 15, 103-131.

29.

O’Driscoll

G. P.

Jr. Holmes

K. P.

O’Grady

M. A.

(2003). Index of economic freedom. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

30.

Polanyi

(1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

31.

Rodrik

(1997). Has globalization gone too far? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

32.

Rudra

(2002). Globalization and the decline of the welfare state in less-developed countries. International Organization, 56, 411-445.

33.

Savolainen

(2000). Inequality, welfare state, and homicide: Further support for the institutional anomie theory. Criminology, 38, 1021-1042.

34.

Stryker

(1998). Globalization and the welfare state. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 18, 1-49.

35.

Teeple

(2000). Globalization and the decline of social reform (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Garamond Press.

36.

Waters

(2001). Globalization (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.