sign in sign up
<<
Home , Anomie, Development theory, Institution, Nomos (sociology)

A Thesis

entitled

Anomie and Development—A Cross-National Study

by

Amin Etemadifar

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master of Degree in

Sociology

______Dr. Dwight Haase, Committee Chair

______Dr. Barbara Coventry, Committee Member

______Dr. Jerry Van Hoy, Committee Member

______Dr. Amanda Bryant-Friedrich, Dean College of Graduate Studies

The of Toledo

December 2016

Copyright 2016, Seyed Amin Etemadifar

This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright , no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.

An Abstract of

Anomie and Development—A Cross-National Study

by

Amin Etemadifar

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in

The University of Toledo

December 2016

This is a quantitative cross-national study examining the relationship between development and anomie in 100 countries using the data extracted from the and United Development Program. The main goal of the study is to inspect

Durkheim’s of anomie, as he views anomie as a threat to the stability and integration of . So the study distinguishes such a formulation of anomie with that of Merton and his followers who reformulated it as a concept merely to explain the issue of . Independent variables of study include the

(measured based on health, , and income), Political Development Index

(measured based on efficiency of government, rule of law, and accountability of government), , migration, access to the Internet, international economic integration, urbanization, gender development, and size of population, and their effects on anomie are examined by a OLS curvilinear regression technique. Regarding the fact that all countries have achieved at least a minimum level of development, it is not possible to examine what happens exactly at the very beginning of the process of

iii development, and consequently, the focus in on a range of countries from low-developed to very high-developed. According to the results, development has a strong negative effect on the level of anomie. Also, urbanization, growth of population, and geographic mobility have positive effects on anomie that is consistent with Durkheim’s argument.

However, no significant relationship was found between anomie and social inequality, which is not consistent with Merton’s theory of anomie. In addition, the effect of geographical region, cultural background, level of development, and regime type are examined by ANOVA, and based on the result, all of these four factors have a significant effect on the level of anomie. Countries located in the Middle East and North Africa, and with an Islamic background experience more anomie compared to countries. In addition, anomie of weak are more than established autocracies suggesting the degree of is more important that the form of government.

iv

For and Émile Durkheim…

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Figures ...... xi

1 Introduction ...... 1

2 Theoretical Discussion and Literature Review ...... 4

2.1 Anomie ...... 4

2.1.1 Durkheim’s Theory of Anomie ...... 7

2.1.1.1 Durkheim’s View of Society ...... 7

2.1.1.2 Durkheim’s Definition of Anomie ...... 12

2.1.2 Merton’s Theory of Anomie and Strain ...... 15

2.1.2.1 Merton’s Anomie Theory ...... 16

2.1.2.2 Merton’s Strain Theory ...... 17

2.1.2.3 Modes of Adaptations ...... 18

2.1.3 After Merton ...... 19

vi

2.1.4 Institutional Anomie Theory ...... 20

2.1.5 Comparison of Durkheim’s and Merton’s Anomie Theory ...... 22

2.2 Development ...... 23

2.2.1 Emergence of Modernization ...... 24

2.2.2 Emergence of Dependency Paradigm ...... 28

2.2.3 Neo-liberal Paradigm ...... 31

2.2.4 Revision of Washington Consensus and More Recent Approaches ...... 35

2.3 Prior Empirical Studies on Anomie ...... 39

2.4. The Distinctions of Current Study ...... 44

3 Methods ...... 46

3.1 Hypothesis of Study ...... 46

3.2 Variables of Study...... 47

3.2.1 Dependent variable ...... 47

3.2.2 Independent Variables ...... 48

3.3 Data Sources ...... 52

3.4 Sampling Technique ...... 52

3.5 Statistical Techniques ...... 53

4 Results ...... 58

4.1 Descriptive data ...... 58

4.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ...... 61

vii

4.2.1 Grouping Based on Geographical Region ...... 63

4.2.2 Grouping Based on the Level of Development...... 65

4.2.3 Grouping Based on Regime Type ...... 67

4.3 Regression Analysis ...... 69

5 Discussion and Conclusion ...... 73

5.1 Findings and Implications ...... 73

5.2. Limitations of Current Study and Conclusion ...... 77

References ...... 80

A The Effect of Cultural Background on Anomie ...... 97

B Maps ...... 100

viii

List of Tables

2.1 Types of ...... 13

2.2 Modes of Adaptation...... 19

3.1 Equations of Regression Models ...... 56

4.1 Variables by Country ...... 59

4.2 Descriptive ...... 61

4.3 Criterion Variables for Each Country ...... 62

4.4 Means and Standard Deviations of Anomie by Regions ...... 64

4.5 Games-Howel Post hoc Results of Anomie by Regions ...... 65

4.6 Means and Standard Deviations of Anomie by Levels of Development ...... 66

4.7. Games-Howel Post hoc Results of Anomie by Levels of Development ...... 67

4.8 Means and Standard Deviations of Anomie by Regime Type ...... 68

4.9 Games-Howel Post hoc Results of Anomie by Regime Type ...... 68

4.10 Correlation Matrix ...... 69

ix

4.11 OLS Curvilinear Multivariate Regression for the effects of development related

variables on Anomie ...... 71

A.1 Means and Standard Deviations of Anomie by Cultural Background ...... 97

A.2 Games-Howel Post hoc Results of Anomie by Cultural Background ...... 98

x

List of Figures

4.1 Relationship between Anomie and Development ...... 70

B.1 Level of Anomie in Countries of the Sample ...... 101

B.1 Level of Development in Countries of the Sample ...... 102

xi

Chapter 1

Introduction

A quick reflection on the conditions of developing countries shows that many of them are struggling with a variety of interwoven problems and difficulties. The impact of many of those problems are not limited only to those countries and more or less involve other industrialized and developed countries. For example, the problems of some Middle

Eastern countries have created a favorable situation for expanding terrorism around the world, as well as other crises like a huge number of refugees driven to other regions of the world. Therefore, any kind of providing us more insights about such seems necessary. We may examine this matter from different perspectives; however, I believe the concept of anomie which, is one of the main concepts of sociology, and related to it can be very informative and shed lights on new dimensions of the issue.

Originally, anomie was formulized by Emile Durkheim as a systemic concept to explain a pathological form of the modern division of labor causing problems for the of society. Indeed, Durkheim’s main concern was the existence of society, and he viewed anomie as a factor threatening that existence. However, a few decades after

Durkheim, Robert Merton reformulated anomie to explain the high rate of in the

1

United States, and thereafter anomie theory has become a theoretical instrument to explain crime, especially in developed countries. A review of the existing literature of anomie and previous empirical studies is evidence confirming this fact.

I believe that Merton’s formulation of anomie has reduced that rich concept only to one dimension, that is the explanation of crime, and has deviated it from its original purpose, that was a threat to the existence of society, because crime can be considered as only one aspect of that threat. Indeed, the current study is a kind of return to the original purpose of anomie and tries to conceptualize this concept in the way that covers any instability, unrest, and violence in society.

In addition, the current study views anomie as a systemic and macro-level concept associated with society as a ; so from this perspective measuring anomie by surveying , as it is common in previous studies, is not possible and we have to look at the behavior of society as a whole. As a result, the operationalization of anomie in this study is different from that of the majority of previous works.

Another characteristic of this study is its method, which is cross-country and comparative. Although there are a large number of studies concerning anomie, the majority of them are at an intra-country level, especially for the United States, and there are few studies comparing the level of anomie in different countries. Therefore, it seems that a cross-country comparison can show the new potentials of this concept, and fills this gap in the existing theoretical literature. Furthermore, it seems that the study of developing countries from a comparative perspective offers us more insights about potential problems and dynamics of such societies, because with the help of comparison we would be able to compare developing societies with other societies behind or ahead of

2 them in the process of development, and also similarities and differences between societies offer valuable theoretical results.

The findings of this research can be useful especially for policies related to the process of development. Since development has a disturbing effect on the traditional norms and values of a society, it contributes to anomie, and it is possible this resulting anomie causes new social problems that against the very goal of development policies. Thus, the examination of anomie during this process can be significant and helpful.

This thesis includes four chapters. The first chapter reviews the main theories of anomie and development as well as previous empirical studies on this topic. The second chapter describes the details of the research methods, variables, data sources, sampling, and hypotheses of the research. In the third chapter, I present the results of data analysis, and finally, chapter four discusses the results, draws some conclusions and provides some clues for future studies. At the end of last chapter, I also address some major limitations of the study.

3

Chapter 2

Theoretical Discussion and Literature Review

This chapter is composed of three main sections. The first section provides prior major studies of the concept of anomie and its related theories. The second section reviews the concept of development as it has been theorized after the II. And the third section summarizes the existing studies of anomie, and presents the significance of the current study.

2.1 Anomie

Anomie originally comes from the Greek word anomos, namely the prefix a-

“without,” and “law,” and is found in Biblical and ancient Greek texts, including those of Plato and Plutarch, referring to lawlessness or 's weakened ability to control individuals (Orrù 1987). In the modern era, anomie first was used by Guyau

([1897] 2009), a contemporary of Durkheim. While typically anomie has been concerned with a negative , Guyau used it in a positive way, referring to a condition where an can be more creative and less constrained by social and religious norms.

Durkheim borrowed this term from Guyau, and used it in his doctoral dissertation that finally was published under the name of The Division of Labor in Society (Orrù

4

1983:507). We can also find the foundation of many Durkheim’s discussions on anomie in Aguste Comte’s thoughts and arguments and his view to society (Wernick 2001:109).

Since then, anomie as a theory has gone through several transitions; however, the fundamental assumptions behind it has remained constant: First, all theories of anomie assume that deviant behavior is a normal response to the abnormal social condition.

Second, socialized humans generally behave in predictable ways. Third, all theories assume that seeking goals is a normal human quality. And forth, and cause strain by their , the allocation of resources, and the values they prescribe (Lanier and Henry 2004). Mansfield (2004) presents a concise, and at the same time, exhaustive view of it:

The concept of anomie has been defined in sociological terms as a condition of normlessness or the suspension of rules and behavioral guidelines, which creates a moral vacuum (Coser 1964). Anomie is a state of flux or transition that exists in a society or group when the old normative structure has been interrupted and before a new normative structure has been established. In order for anomie to occur, there is a presupposed condition that norms and rules previously existed, and that some sort of social crisis disrupts that state of being, leaving the group members unsure of what is expected of them (Merton 1957; Cloward 1959). As a result, the culture’s equilibrium is disturbed and the regulating norms of tradition are destroyed. continues to assert that during periods of anomie, the tendency for individuals to engage in deviant behaviors increases dramatically (Durkheim [1897]1951; Cloward 1959; Coser 1964). (Mansfield 2004, p. 89)

If we want to summarize the meaning of anomie only into one word, maybe the word “normlessness” is the most appropriate term to suggest its meaning. However, according to existing literature, it is possible that we look at anomie or the condition of normlessness from three different perspectives: sociological, psychological, and criminological.

5

Durkheim (1893, 1897) was the first theorist to use anomie in a sociological context. As it will be discussed in next section, Durkheim looks at society from a macro perspective and considers it as a system. Individuals are components of that system and society has to provide solidarity with itself to maintain its existence, and in this respect, social norms play a critical . However, with the emergence of and industrialization, the traditional order of society encounters problems and it is possible that the society enters to an anomic condition.

Sorle (1956), for the first time, adjusts anomie to a micro or psychological level and called it anomia. He attempts to explain socio-psychological states of emotional isolation and hopelessness by anomia. Furthermore, he designed and developed a scale to measure anomia that has been widely used over the past fifty years, and became a cornerstone for other scales of anomie.

Finally, Merton was the first theorist who applied anomie to a criminological context. Merton (1938) attempts to explain the high rate of crime in American society, as an industrialized and stable country. He finds the problem in American culture and the idea of American Dream that overemphasizes on monetary success without sufficient emphasize on legitimized norms. Another Merton’s argument is that the social structure of society distributes resources unequally, so some groups of society having less access to resources have to resort to non-legitimized means. After Merton, other criminologists started to expand and revise his theory.

A significant point here is that although from all of these perspectives anomie inspires a negative meaning, and it is synonymous with a troubling situation, as Schmid

6

(1999) argues, without anomie any change in society is not possible. This means that a society with zero level of anomie suffers from a state of stagnation. Hence, if and are desirable, anomie will be inevitable, and an optimum level of anomie provides a chance with society to find a new stage of living and producing.

In the current study, we are going to examine anomie from a sociological perspective. Indeed, the main goal of this study is finding problems that development and social change may raise in a society. So it seems that Durkheim’s definition of anomie is more in harmony with the current study. However, reviewing other formulations of anomie from the criminological perspective, especially Merton and some of his followers, can provide helpful insights with the topic because the nature of their discussions are sociological. Therefore, in what follows, after the discussion of

Durkheim’s theory of anomie, we turn to Merton and then more contemporary theories of anomie.

2.1.1 Durkheim’s Theory of Anomie

2.1.1.1 Durkheim’s View of Society

Before the discussion of anomie as Durkheim defines it, is necessary to understand the perspective through which Durkheim views society. For Durkheim, as a pioneer sociologist, the main preoccupation is the matter of integration of a social system and of what holds society together (Parsons 1960:118). As Muller (1994) argues,

Durkheim follows the French socialistic tradition, which pays special attention to social bonds. In this tradition, Saint-Simon (1760-1825) coins the term "industrial society" to refer a new type of society. In industrial society, the innovative spirit of engineers and

7 technicians drives the static aristocratic society into a dynamic industrialism with technological progress, the division of labor, and productivity. After Saint-Simon, his disciple Auguste Comte (1799-1857) argues that the division of labor entails fragmentation of society and imperils its cohesion. Comte suggests that economy alone is unable to generate social bonds and a strong state is needed to produce cohesion by the help of a new common religion (Muller 1994:77). Durkheim starts his approach in such a tradition; however, he presents a different view to the cohesion of society in modern time.

Durkheim indicates that all human beings have some intrinsic needs and these needs are not bound by any limit because humans have the ability of reflection.

Reflection causes that whenever humans satisfy their current desires, they would be pushed to have another level of desire. He states: “[The] more one has, the more one wants to have, the satisfaction one receives only serving to stimulate needs instead of fulfilling them ([1897] 2006: 271). He adds that there must be something from outside restricting the individual’s desires and appetites, and controling them because nothing inside the individuals can the limit for ever-craving intrinsic desires. Durkheim that this is the society that creates that external restriction and says: “Only society …can play this moderating role, because it is the only moral power superior to the individual whose superiority the individual accepts” (Durkheim, [1897] 2006: 272).

Therefore, it is safe to say that the most fundamental function of a society is regulating and controlling its individuals, and this function is performed by the normative structure of society.

According to Durkheim ([1893] 1984), in a society all members have to follow certain norms and these norms guide individual actions in the best interests of the whole

8 society. These norms bond individuals and connect them together, and consequently, cause a kind of solidarity. The existence of society hinges on this solidarity as he says: “a well-functioning society depends on the solidarity of its members, all indoctrinated to the same set of social rules" (Durkheim, 1984: 21). However, he believes the nature of solidarity evolves over time and distinguishes two ideal types of solidarity: mechanical and organic. Society evolves from mechanical to organic solidarity, and the main cause of this evolution is a complex form of division of labor.

Mechanical solidarity, which is a characteristic of pre-modern and pre- industrialized society with a low level of division of labor, is based on the similarities of individuals and social groups. In such a society, social groups are isolated from one another and are self-sufficient. Individuals live under similar circumstances and share common values. So this solidarity is based on the uniformity of its members. The significant point in this kind of solidarity is what Durkheim calls it conscience , that is “the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a determinate system which has its own life” (Durkheim [1893]1933:79).

Mechanical solidarity is only possible as long as individual conscience submerges into the collective conscience, and so the individual, as such, did not exist.

In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim ([1905]1976) argues that mechanical solidarity is the basis of early religious life. He demonstrates how religion functioned as a means of creating conscience collective and elevated man beyond mere individual existence. He says that the object of religious life “is to raise man above himself and to make him lead a life superior to that which he would lead, if he followed

9 only his own individual whims: beliefs express this life in representations; rites organize it and regulate its working” (Durkheim 1976:447).

Durkheim believes that society, like an organism, evolves over time and becomes more complicated and sophisticated. He argues that factors such as population concentration, the growth of cities, and the growth in the number and rapidity of communication and transportation networks, which happen during the process of industrialization and modernization, are causes of the evolution of society to a more advanced level with its own nature and characteristics (Durkheim [1893]1964:276).

According to Durkheim, while the main base of solidarity in pre-modern society was similarity of individuals and conscience collective, the base of solidarity in modern society is diversity and a high level of division of labor. As a result of the process of industrialization and modernization, individuals and social groups become more specialized and diverse, and because each group with a specific specialty needs other groups with other specialties to survive, this division of labor creates cooperation and reciprocity between them, and eventually forms a kind of solidarity in society (Durkheim

[1893]1984). Durkheim says:

[On] the one hand, each one depends as much more strictly on society as labor is more divided; and, on the other, the activity of each is as much more personal as it is more specialized.... Society becomes more capable of collective movement, at the same time that each of its elements has more freedom of movement. The solidarity resembles that which we observe among the higher animals. Each organ, in effect, has its special physiognomy, it . And moreover, the unity of the organism is as great as the individuation of the parts is more marked. Because of this analogy, we propose to call the solidarity which is due to the division of labor, organic (Durkheim 1984:131).

10

In modern society, individuals no longer have common experiences, but have a great variety of different settings, each leading towards its own conscience. As a result, the strength of conscience collective declines, and instead, the division of labor regulates individuals by limiting their activity to a specific direction. Commonly shared values still persist because the existence of society depends on them, but the nature of them is not rooted in the totality of commonly shared daily experiences. People are highly specialized in their tasks and are encouraged to act as individuals rather than as members of a group in pursuing their individual aspirations; so the role of individuality and individual aspirations are more significant in a modern society.

According to Durkheim, the role of religion and tradition declines in the evolution of society to a modern society. Although religion played a key function in strengthening of conscious collective for a great deal of , it no longer has such a role in modern societies characterized by individualistic rationalism and a high degree of interaction in the global sphere of cultural heterogeneity (Durkheim [1893]1984).

Another significant point is the decline of tradition in modern and industrialized society.

The strength of the conscience collective is not only because of its states are shared, but also that they are the legacy of previous generations. This authority of tradition is well supported in societies of the segmental type, but in an industrialized society the segmental organization is undermined, individuals no longer feel bound to their kin- group or even their place of origin; migration ensues, and the authority of tradition weakens commensurately. In contrast to religion and tradition, the role of secondary social groups rises in modern society. Durkheim asserts that the process of division of labor at once segregates society into secondary groups, and at the same time, provides the

11 means by which the society integrates because such secondary groups force individuals to participate in the new division of labor (Durkheim 1984).

2.1.1.2 Durkheim’s Definition of Anomie

Durkheim uses the concept of anomie in the Division of Labor in Society (1893) and then in Suicide (1897). At the end of the Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim argues that the transition from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity may rise some problems and create some kinds of pathologic or abnormal division of labor. One of these pathologic forms is the anomic division of labor. This abnormal form of division of labor does not produce solidarity for society because individuals, increasingly isolated by their more specialized tasks, lose any sense of being integral parts of some larger whole. This reflects a lack of mutual adjustment among the parts of the social organism. As a result, the relation of society’s organs are not regulated and they are in a state of anomie. This means there are not sufficient moral constraints in society and the individuals do not have a clear concept of what is acceptable and appropriate (Ritzer 1992:85).

Therefore, while the normal state the division of labor creates social solidarity, the anomic state of the division of labor cannot provide such a solidarity and society is in a normless or anomic condition. This condition can produce a variety of social maladies, including crime, individual disorientation, destructive social life, and extensive conflict

(Vold et al 2002; Lanier & Henry, 2004). Durkheim’s concrete examples come from industrialized societies and include economic crash, the conflict between management and labor, the separation of work and life, and so on through the standard concerns of nineteenth-century reformers (Tilly 1977:18).

12

Table 2.1 Types of Suicide

Too Low Too High

Moral Regulations (by norms) Anomie Fatalism Moral Integration (by goals) Altruism

In his next major book, Suicide, Durkheim attempts to explain a certain kind of social , suicide, and finds its cause in the relation between the individual and society. According to Durkheim ([1897], 2006), society restricts and controls individuals through religion, family, or authority in two directions: and social regulations. The former is based on social values and the latter is based on social norms.

The rate of suicide increases when in society each direction verges on the extreme. Based on this model, four types of abnormal societies exist, and each of them is favorable to a unique kind of suicide. The first kind of suicide, egoistic suicide, results from a very low degree of integration of individual and society (e.g. individuals living in isolation and alienation from society). Altruistic suicide, the second kind, results from a very high level of integration (e.g. soldiers might end their lives for the honor of the society). The third kind of suicide, anomic suicide is the result of a very low degree of social regulation (e.g. in times of instability and chaos in society). Durkheim ([1897], 2006) argues that an anomic society with the normless condition is highly conducive to abnormal behaviors such as suicide. Finally, fatalistic suicide, which Durkheim explains it very briefly in his book, is the result of a very high degree of social regulation (e.g. in or ).

So an abnormal society is a society where there is an imbalance in social integration and social regulation. Table 2.1 presents the types of suicide.

13

Durkheim specifically emphasizes society experiencing the transition from a traditional form to the modern. He argues that in such a society higher levels of deviance are the result of two factors: increases in egoism, and a loss of social regulation. These two factors share the same social causes, the weakness of social integration and regulation, and consequently, the absence of society in the individual (Durkheim [1897]

1979: 258). The rise of egoism is linked to the rise of individuality in modern society, and the weakness of social regulation is linked with material change as society undergoes the process of industrialization and structural demographic change.

However, besides this transitional society, Durkheim believes that any rapid social change, such as an economic recession or prosperity, may disturb the efficiency of social integration and regulation. For example, Durkheim ([1897]1951: 213) asserts that in the case of economic disasters, something like a declassification occurs which suddenly casts certain individuals into a lower state than their previous one. These individuals have to restrain their needs compared to the past, and learn greater self- control. But society cannot adjust them instantaneously to this new life and teach them to practice the increased self-repression to which they are unaccustomed. So they are not adjusted to the new condition forced upon them, and this very prospect is intolerable. In such circumstances, society is not able to control individuals efficiently, at least for a while, and the social regulation encounters with imbalance. Likewise, the opposite of this condition may occur for sudden economic prosperity. From this perspective, as we will see in the next section, Merton reformulates the concept of anomie to explain the high rate of social deviance after the Great Depression in American society.

14

In sum, we can conclude that Durkheim views society as a system, and like other kinds of system, this system must be able to control its components -- in this case individuals -- to maintain its existence and stability. The mechanism that society fulfills this function through is social norms that restrict and direct individuals. However, in certain conditions, this mechanism may not work efficiently, so society cannot control its individuals and encounters instability and its existence is endangered. Durkheim calls this condition anomic.

As the previous literature suggests, anomie, from Durkheim’s perspective, refers to normlessness. (Passas, 1995). For instance, Clinard (1964:7) believes that "what

Durkheim referred to as anomie can be otherwise termed a state of `normlessness'." Also,

Coser (1971:132-133) asserts that Durkheim’s anomie “refers to a condition of relative normlessness in a whole society or in some of its component groups.”

2.1.2 Merton’s Theory of Anomie and Strain

Almost four decades after Durkheim, Robert Merton reformulated the concept of anomie in a new direction. While the preoccupation of Durkheim was solidarity and cohesion of society during the transition from pre-modern era to the modern, Merton’s main intention was to explain the high rate of crime in American society, especially after the Great Depression. Merton (1938) in his article "Social Structure and Anomie," which with its various manifestations (Merton 1949a; 1949b; 1957; 1968) is the most quoted contribution in sociology (Besnard 1987:272; Cole 1975: 175), uses the term of anomie only casually, without even a reference to Durkheim (Levine, 1985:57; Hilbert 1986:4).

He more explicitly discusses anomie, with reference to Durkheim, in his subsequent papers (e.g. 1957, 1968), but in a different way. As some scholars believe (e.g.

15

Featherstone and Deflem 2003; Cullen and Agnew, 2003), Merton forwards two distinct theories: a theory of anomie and a strain theory of deviant behavior. However, because he does not clearly distinguish them, these theories have been to some degree confused with each other in the secondary literature.

According to Merton (1938, 1959, 1964, 1968) a social system includes two components: a social structure and a cultural structure; and the cultural structure itself is composed of two elements: cultural values and institutional norms. The strain to deviant behavior is a result of conflict between social structure and cultural structure, and anomie is a consequence of an imbalance between cultural values or goals and cultural norms. In what follows, Merton’s two approaches are described.

2.1.2.1 Merton’s Anomie Theory

The clearest definition of anomie in Merton’s theory is a demoralization or deinstitutionalization of the means that is the consequence of a dissociation between cultural goals and institutional norms (Merton 1968:190). As it was mentioned above, the cultural structure of society includes two elements. First, values that refer to culturally defined goals, purposes, and interests that are held out as legitimate objects for all members of the society (Merton, 1959: 228). These cultural values provide prestige and sentiment to the individual and also groups living in society. Second, norms or means that refer to the normative modes of realizing those values and goals (Merton, 1959, 1968).

These legitimate means include several forms such as , learning a skill, employment, involvment in social networks, and so on (Merton 1938; Messner and

Rosenfeld 2001; Baumer and Gustafson 2007; Portes 2010). While these norms and

16 means are the approved and oftentimes institutionalized methods for attainment, they are not necessarily the most efficient methods of achieving cultural goals.

According to Merton, in normal society, success is defined as both an end as well a process as people seek legitimate goals through legitimate means. However, anomie happens when there is a kind of imbalance between cultural goals and institutionalized means. Merton suggests that when means and goals are emphasized at disproportionate levels, anomie will be the result (Orrù 1987:138–41).

More specifically, Merton focuses on the condition when “cultural (or idiosyncratic) exaggeration of the success-goal leads men to withdraw emotional support from the rules” and a deinstitutionalization of means occurs (Merton 1968:190). Merton

(1957) applies his theory to American society and argues all Americans are socialized to the same cultural goals of material success based on what is called the American Dream.

However, this culture places too much emphasis on those goals while deemphasizing the importance of legitimate means and norms. The result is that the level of anomie in

American society is considerably high relative to other societies.

2.1.2.2 Merton’s Strain Theory

In his strain theory, Merton intends to explain why the rate of crimes among certain groups of society, like lower social classes, is higher. As it was mentioned,

Merton divides society into two components: cultural structure and social structure. He relates social structure to the system of social and economic stratification that the access to the legitimate means for the attainment of culturally defined goals is distributed by it.

Society socializes its members to cultural goals and all members are expected to aspire to

17 these goals. In an ideal state, the access to legitimate means for goal attainment is equal for all members of society.

However, in a class-stratified society, because there is inequality in access to means, some group and classes of society have better access to legitimized means and can reach desirable goals more easily, and for some members it is more difficult. The strain to deviant behavior starts when this latter group has no choice but utilizing not legitimized means. Merton notes: “legitimate effort is limited by the fact that actual advance toward desired success-symbols through conventional channels is, despite our persisting open-class , relatively rare and difficult for those handicapped by little formal education and few economic resources” (1938:679). Merton suggests: “[T]he greatest pressures towards deviation are exerted upon the lower strata” (1968:198).

Therefore, “It is the combination of the cultural emphasis and the social structure which produces intense pressure for deviation” (Merton 1968:199). He again refers to

American culture which overemphasizes monetary successes and concludes: “'The-end- justifies-the-means' doctrine becomes a guiding tenet for action when the cultural structure unduly exalts the end and the social organization unduly limits possible recourse to approved means” (Merton 1938:681).

2.1.2.3 Modes of Adaptations

Merton (1938) argues that there are five “modes of individual adaptation,” in society and all individuals strategically choose one of them. The most common mode of adaptation is conformity because without it continuity and stability would not be possible for a society. In this mode, the individual accepts both cultural goals and institutionalized

18

Table 2.2 Modes of Adaptation

Type Cultural Goals Institutionalized Means

1. Conformity + + 2. + - 3. Ritualism - + 4. Retreatism - - 5. Rebellion ± ± means (e.g. a college student). The other four modes of adaptation are a kind of deviant alternative. The second mode is innovation, which refers to the acceptance of goals but the rejection of means (e.g. a drug dealer). Merton suggests that innovation is the most common deviant adaptation and is closely related to crime (Merton 1938:676). The third adaptation is retreatism, in which the individual rejects both the goals and means and withdraws from society (e.g. an alcoholic).

The next adaptation is ritualism, in which a member of society rejects the goals but accepts the means (e.g. an employee who has given up on a promotion, but he or she may go to work and follow the rules just for the sake of doing it). Finally, the fifth adaptation is rebellion, which refers to an individual who rejects both the goals and means of society, and wants to replace them by new goals and means (e.g. a terrorist).

Table 2.2 presents the modes of adaptations according to Merton (1938).

2.1.3 After Merton

After Merton, the concept of anomie diverged into two branches: one branch is strain theory, and another is institutional anomie theory (Featherstone and Deflem 2003).

Here, we only mention the most important theories of strain with a brief description,

19 because strain theory is not related to the topic of this research, and then, describe institutional anomie theory in more details.

The most well-known theories of strain include Cohen’s delinquent theory; Cloward and Ohlin’s theory of differential opportunity; and Agnew’s general strain theory. Cohen (1955) applied Merton’s formulation of anomie and strain along with symbolic to explain how certain groups, like gangs, create their own as a response to their perceived lack of economic and social opportunity, and these subcultures have values and attitudes that are conducive to crime and violence.

Cloward and Ohlin (1960), based on Merton‘s notion of strain, argue that crimes result from a high number of illegitimate opportunities and not from a lack of legitimate ones.

And Agnew (1992) argues that strain is raised when an individual perceives a lack of support in attaining desired goals, and crime is one emotional way to respond to such a strain.

2.1.4 Institutional Anomie Theory

At the end of the twentieth century, in their book Crime and the American Dream

(1994), Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld attempt to expand Merton’s theory, and present the theory of institutional anomie to explain the unique American society obsession with crime. Although they accept the basis of Merton’s argument, they suggest that he failed to consider the role of the social in the analysis of anomie

(Messner and Rosenfeld (2001:57). They believe that Merton reduces social structure only to stratification and inequality in society, while the role of the social , as another aspect of social structure, and interaction between these institutions are critical.

They say:

20

The anomie perspective as developed by Merton and his followers does not... provide a fully comprehensive sociological explanation of crime in America. The most conspicuous limitation of Merton's analysis is that it focuses exclusively on one aspect of social structure: inequality in access to the legitimate means for success. As a consequence, it does not explain how specific features of the broader institutional structure of society, beyond the stratification system, interrelate to produce the anomie pressures that are responsible for crime (Messner and Rosenfeld 2007:14). Societies are composed of social institutions and each institution has its own necessary function in society. These institutions develop slowly over time and with their stability help establish norms, values, , and beliefs in a given society. Messner and

Rosenfeld (2001) specifically point out four main types of institution: economic, family, education, and polity, and suggest in an ideal society there is a balance between these institutions. However, in American society such a balance does not exist and the economic institution has dominated over other institutions, and as a result, other major institutions serve the interests of the economy. Such a society compels individuals to prioritize economic success by any means necessary over other commitments to non- economic institutions. The result is the disempowering of non-economic institutions, and disturbing their functions, including crime-mitigating functions or legitimate-means- providing functions (Cullen 1994; Messner and Rosenfeld 2001; Baumer and Gustafson

2007; Messner, Thome and Rosenfeld 2008).

According to the theory of institutional anomie, the process of the domination of the economic institution over non-economic institutions is performed through three mechanisms: devaluation, accommodation, and penetration of institutions (Messner,

Thome and Rosenfeld 2008:168). First, through devaluation, non-economic institutions and functions become devalued. For example, noneconomic roles such as mother or

21 friend take on less prestige when compared to economic roles such as teacher, professor, banker or CEO; or values of knowledge for knowledge’s sake, or the role of the humanities in higher education have been devalued in the face of the economic value of a degree. Second, by accommodation non-economic values must accommodate economic values. For instance, accommodation occurs when time spent with the family or gatherings is sacrificed for work obligations. Third, penetration occurs when

“the logic of the marketplace intrudes into other realms of social life” (Messner, Thome and Rosenfeld 2008:168). For example, when an individual choose his or her career path because it will be highly profitable; or family roles now emphasize the “breadwinner” over the role of parent.

In sum, we can say that, according to this theory, anomie increases when, on the one hand, economic values and goals become dominant over non-economic values, and on the other hand, weakened non-economic institutions are not able to provide legitimized means and norms for society. Messner and Rosenfeld (2001) suggest that the relationship among various institutions are not static and also the power of them changes over time. Therefore, the empowering of institutions like family and polity could counterbalance the dominance of economic values, and as a result, the level of anomie decreases.

2.1.5 Comparison of Durkheim’s and Merton’s Anomie Theory

As we can see institutional anomie theory is an expansion of Merton’s theory; however, it seems that there are some considerable differences between Durkheim’s and

Merton’s theory of anomie. Although some scholars (Clinard, 1964; Gibbons, 1987) emphasize more the similarities between the two theories, arguing that Merton applies

22

Durkheim’s theory to other forms of deviance to present a general theory of deviance; others (Scott and Turner, 1965) believe that two theories have a little to do with each other.

As far as the topic of current study is concerned, we can find significant differences between Durkheim and Merton. When Durkheim talks about anomie, especially in the Division of Labor in Society, his concern is the solidarity of society and anomie threatens the existence and cohesion of society as a system. Even in Suicide,

Durkheim’s fundamental goal is to consider suicide as deviant behavior against society’s entity rather than just explaining a kind of crime. However, Merton does not have such an existential concern, and only focuses on a narrower issue, that is crimes in American society. It seems that the topic of current study is more in line with Durkheim’s concern because the independent variable is development, and the intentionality behind this research is problems and dangers that development and social change can beget for society. However, Merton’s theory also can provide us some useful insights in this respect.

2.2 Development

In what follows, mainstream of development theories and policies since the end of

World War II is discussed. This mainstream includes modernization theories, dependency theories, and the neoliberal approach that continued until the 1990s. The backbone of all these approaches is . Although some theorists in that period of time pointed to other dimensions of development, there had been a reduction of development to its economic dimension throughout that period. From the 1990s, other

23 aspects of development such as political, human rights, civil rights, and ecosystem considerations, have been progressively added to the agenda and the practice of development, and today this concept is understood to be much more complicated than what it used to be.

2.2.1 Emergence of the Modernization Paradigm

The new beginning of theorizing and thinking on development dates back to the end of World War II. After a period of pessimism in the first half of the twentieth century, during World War I, economic depression and the emergence of Fascism, hope for modernization quickly revived and many policy makers as well as academics started focusing on that matter (Hettne, 2009; Nederveen 2001; Knutsson 2009).

One considerable factor in reviving and expanding the matter of development was the immediate political interests of the United States because this country feared the gaining power of communism, especially in Europe, devastated after the World War II.

So the construction of Europe was prioritized, and in 1947 the then secretary of state,

George Marshall, presented an impressive aid plan for the reconstruction of Europe, the

“” (Abrahamsson, 2003; Scott, 2001, Knutsson 2009). The Marshall Plan turned out to be very successful, and this success became a model for similar aid plans at an international level.

Meanwhile, the United States government strongly supported study and research on development in and research centers. In addition, the establishment of the

Bretton Woods institutions - including the International Monetary Fund (IMF, concerned with promoting stability of the international monetary system), the International Bank for

24

Reconstruction and Development (generally known as the World Bank, concerned with promoting long-term through financial aid), and the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, concerned with promoting international trade through tariff reductions) - made up the cornerstones of the new capitalist bloc under

American leadership as opposed to the communist bloc (Knutsson 2009). This international atmosphere paved the way for the partitioning of the world into three geo- economic areas: the (known as Western bloc and allies of the United States), the Second World (the communist bloc and allies of the Soviet Union), and the Third

World (including neutral and generally under-developed countries) (Gaddis 1998).

The dominant paradigm of development after World War II that continued until the middle of the 1960s was . Although Modernization theory was not a single and unified body of work, there are certain assumptions that can be found in many of its key theorists like Walt Rostow, , Lucien Pye, Daniel

Lerner, Gabriel Almond, , Marion Levy, and Neil Smelser. The theorists of this paradigm usually were optimistic about the modernization of countries, and reduced the concept of development to just one dimension: economic growth or economic development. And based on this definition of development, gross national production (GNP) per capita was the most significant criterion to evaluate development (Hettne 1995; Szirmai 2005). Despite the lack of an exact agreement, economic development can be defined as “a process whereby the real per capita income of a country increases over a long period of time while simultaneously is reduced and the inequality in society is generally diminished” with a wide approval (Meier 1989).

25

The main perception of development in modernization theory can be understood based on the backwardness of underdeveloped countries to developed countries (Hettne

1995; Szirmai 2005; Knutsson 2009). So from this perspective, all countries inevitably have to go through a similar linear path and development is a matter of an imitative process whereby the Third World countries are to catch up with industrialized countries.

In this view, a dichotomy divides the societies of the world into the “traditional” and the

“modern”, and traditional societies eventually would move toward modern society in a series of predictable stages (Huntington 1971:285). So modernization is a transformative process that renders tradition and modernity mutually exclusive (Huntington 1976). For example, Moore defines modernization as “the total transformation of a traditional or pre- modern society into the types of technology and the associated social organization that characterize the advanced, economically prosperous and relatively politically stable nations of the western world” (1975: 89).

As some scholars (e.g. Tipps 1973; Huntington 1971) argue, the modernization paradigm was strongly under the influence of evolutionary theory and twentieth century functionalism, and many of the theorists of this tradition of thought were functionalist theorists such as Lerner, Levy, Eisenstadt, and Parsons. Many scholars of this paradigm argue that society develops in a single, irreversible trajectory in a stepwise fashion. These steps include processes such as , urbanization, industrialization, literacy growth, and media growth, all of which emancipate individuals from the authority of traditions (e.g. Lerner, 1958; Inkeles, 1969; Redfield, 1947).

For instance, Rostow's book, the Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist

Manifesto ([1960]1990), was one of the major books of modernization theory published

26 in the heyday of the paradigm. Rostow (1990) optimistically argues that five stages of economic development during the process of transition from traditional societies to modern ones are distinguishable: traditional society, precondition for take-off, take-off, drive toward maturity, and age of high mass consumption. He suggests that all Third

World countries have to go through these progressive stages in order to reach modernity.

Likewise, Parsons (1971) views development in term of biological evolution that increases the complexities, and argues societies have to go through four stages from the primitive to the modern. We can find similar arguments in Organski (1965), Daniel

Lerner (1958), and Lipset (1959).

At the middle of 1960s, because of instability, , coups, and unsuccessful results of development in Third World countries, the earlier optimism of modernization theorists waned, and a number of theorists (e.g. Gusfield 1966; Bendix

1967; Eisenstadt 1964) started problematizing modernization theories to explain its failure (Huntington 1971:293). These theorists generally argue that after the start of the process of modernization, societies encounter challenges in the form of conflict in values, contradicting attitudes, and institutional instability.

One of the noteworthy works in this period was Huntington’s (1968) book,

Political Order in Changing Societies. In the book, he argues modernization is not always associated with positive results, as earlier modernization theorists assumed, and conversely, in many countries it has caused serious negative outcomes. He emphasizes on the political dimension of development and says “the most fundamental aspect of political modernization … is the participation in politics beyond the village or town level by social groups throughout the society and the development of new political institutions,

27 such as political parties, to organize that participation” (Huntington 1968:36). He suggests that modernization and economic growth triggers a process of social mobilization and political participation, and if the existing political institutions did not have enough capacity to handle political participation, modernization would end up with political instability.

2.2.2 Emergence of the Dependency Paradigm

Toward the end of the 1960s, it became clearer that modernization theory suffers from serious deficiencies. Huntington (1971:293) challenged one of the foundations of modernization theory. He problematizes the simplistic dichotomy between tradition and modernity, arguing that what is happening in in much more complicated than this ahistorical dichotomy. He contends that sometimes the difference between two traditional societies is as great as the difference between a modern society and a traditional one.

From another side of political spectrum, the criticism was concerned with the universalizing of the historical experiences of Western countries and the ethnocentricity behind that thought (Weinberg 1969:13). According to this point of view, considering

Western values as universal values is an instrument of “cultural imperialism” (Tipps

1973:210). The argument was that the Third World countries would not necessarily replicate the experience of Western industrialized countries, and they have their own unique challenges and opportunities, and create their own version of modernity.

All of these criticisms along with the unsuccessful experience of many underdeveloped countries caused the modernization paradigm to begin to lose its credence, as Emmanuel Wallerstein (1976) declared the paradigm is “dead.” The fall of

28 the modernization paradigm was also coinciding with a metatheoretical turn in the social sciences: and grand systemic narratives of social change were beginning to be replaced by “area studies” and a focus on the specific historical condition of each case (Fourie 2012). These conditions paved the way for a paradigm shift in the study of development and the rise of a new paradigm called at the beginning of the 1970s.

The emergence of dependency theory can be traced to two groups of theorists usually originated from countries outside the West: the Latin American structuralists

(such as Raul Prebish, Hans Singer, and Osvaldo Sunkel), and neo-

Marxists (like André Gunder Frank, Paul Baran and ). The structuralist camp focuses on the internal process of structural changes that a “typical” has to undergo if it is to succeed in economic development. These structural changes usually are associated with the transformation of domestic economic structures of under- developed countries from a strong emphasis on traditional subsistence agriculture to a more modern, industrially diverse and (Todaro

2012:110). The neo-Marxist camp was more political and radical and explained in terms of the international relations of power and the heritage of colonialism. These scholars view developing countries as beset by institutional, political, and economic rigidities, at both domestic and international levels, and caught up in a dependence relationship with developed countries (Todaro 2012:122).

Despite some dissimilarities, dependency scholars from both camps share a set of basic ideas about development. While the modernization paradigm emphasized internal factors and considered the -state as the given unit of analysis, the dependency

29 paradigm was obsessed with external factors and analyzed development at a global level

(Knutsson 2009). According to dependency scholars, underdevelopment is not an original condition, but a created state, and if we look for an explanation for the underdevelopment of any given country, we will find the cause in the external relationships of the country

(Frank 1967).

From this perspective, there is an unfair division of labor at the global level partitioning countries into two main spheres: the center, (including developed and industrialized countries), and the periphery (including the rest of the world). Through that unfair division of labor, the surplus produced in the periphery is drained and accumulated in the center. In other words, there is a global zero-sum game and the development of some countries has been because of the exploitation of underdevelopment countries

(Prebisch 1950).

Dependency scholars refute the Ricardian-inspired assumption of modernization theory that international specialization provides benefits to all participants. Instead, they contend that international trade is in favor of the center since the real price of primary products for which the periphery has an advantage is progressively reduced compared to the price of manufactured goods. In addition, the center is able to import its needed goods from different peripheral countries, and this fact makes developing countries competitors with each other and drives prices further down. Hence, such unfair trade conditions are against the developing countries and make developed countries exploit them (Prebisch

1950). It is safe to say that the key concept of “backwardness” in modernization theory is replaced by “exploitation” in dependency theory.

30

Guillermo O'Donnell is another theorist of this who focuses on the political aspect of development. According to O'Donnell (1973), a democratic government in not achievable under the condition of dependency because the global exploitative system was abetted by corrupt local elites, a comprador bourgeoisie, and what little economic growth is produced is appropriated by them so the accumulation of is not possible. This pseudo-development condition would never eventuate in , but rather in “bureaucratic authoritarianism” (O'Donnell 1973).

According to dependency theorists, the solution of underdevelopment is delinking of the country from the global structure, and striving for national self-reliance by an inward-oriented strategy marked by protectionism and a strong interventionist state.

However, there is disagreement between reform-oriented structuralists and revolutionary neo-Marxists on how to perform such a strategy. The former emphasizes import- substitution and reforms of the international , while the latter underscores the importance of socialist to break the chains of dependency

(Clarke, 2002; Hettne, 1995; Szirmai, 2005; Knutsson 2009).

Indeed, the dependency theory provides a critique of the existing international economic order. This theory has been reformulated in more sophisticated forms such as world system theory and critical international political economy, being more concerned with the challenges of (Hettne, 1995).

2.2.3 The Neo-liberal Paradigm

The 1980s witnessed another paradigmic change in the definition of development.

Based on empirical evidence, the dependency paradigm faced the accusation of having

31 worsened economic conditions of some developing countries that followed policies presented by this paradigm, while some Asian countries, like Singapore and Taiwan, experienced significant successes by following economic liberalization policies (World

Bank 1993). On the other hand, general disillusionment regarding the utility of state-led development and the collapse of communism coincided with this event. Meanwhile, the election of in the United States, Margret Thatcher in the United

Kingdom, and Helmut Kohl in West Germany shifted policies of these important economic powers from Keynesianism toward the Right.

As a result of all these factors, a neo-classical, or neo-liberal, counterrevolution happened in economic thought that emphasized the positive role of free markets, open economies, and the reduction of the role of government in the economy (Todaro 2012;

Fourie 2012). This neoliberal thought created a new paradigm of development that was radically different from two earlier . For instance, the theorists of this new paradigm defined the Third World as a figment of the guilty imagination of First World scholars and politicians (Preston 1997:260).

According to neoliberal theorists, under the condition of free-, rational individuals know their needs and interests and contract with other individuals based on their interests. These self-interested individuals active in a within and beyond their national boundaries are the most competent agents of development. When individuals are free to maximize their own benefits, consequently, the nation as a whole is able to maximize its own benefit. The biggest enemy of free market is the state and its intervention in the market. Hence, the failure to development is not due to exploitative external factors, as the dependency theorists argued, but rather, it is the consequence of

32 government intervention and regulation of the economy (Todaro 2012). The government's role in development is viewed as the most important point of divergence between the modernization theory and the neoliberal approach (Brohman 1996: 30;

Pieterse 2004: 10).

The government must retreat from the ownership and regulation of economy, and its only legitimate role is to provide basic security and legal services to support laissez- faire (Preston 1997:256). In this regard, Ronald Reagan in his inaugural speech has a famous statement: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” (Reagan 1981). There are two major aspects of the retreat of government. The first one concerns the of the economy, reduction in government planning, of government assets, the abolition of tariff , a favorable approach to foreign investment, and curbing of trade unions (Stallings

1995:12). The second is concerned with the issue of macro-economic stability. This can be enhanced with the abolition of subsides, restriction of , balancing the budget, and managing the balance of payments and inflation rates (Knutsson 2009)

This approach of development recognizes that the national level plays a part in the development process; however, it strongly emphasizes far-reaching trade liberalizations along with creating one single global marketplace, as international trade and interaction kept increasing in the 1980s, and the utilization of the concept of globalization was very prevalent (especially in 1990s in both the academics and public debates) (Castells 1996).

Hence, according to the neoliberal approach, a prerequisite of development is a deeper integration into the world market. The proponents of this argument refer to huge profits

33 for certain actors and a tremendous economic growth, particularly in East-Asia and China in the 1990s, as empirical evidences supporting their idea.

The neoliberal paradigm of development shows itself in the most explicit form in the “Washington Consensus” which increased the role of IMF and the World Bank in global economics, and introduced Stabilization Programs and

Programs (SAPs). The term Washington Consensus, coined first by John Williamson

(1990), refers to a set of free market policies that economists from the World Bank, IMF, and US Treasury Department had a consensus on. The SAPs contained strategies that developing countries must follow in order to either qualify for World Bank and IMF loans. For example, based on this programs, developing countries had to reorient their policies from import-substitution to export promotion, and start privatizating and deregulating their markets. Also, based on the Stabilization Programs, they had to reduce their public expenditures, devaluate their national currency, and exercise monetary policies (Williamson 1990; Abrahamsson 2003; Szirmai, 2005; Knutsson 2009).

The enormous extent of the effects the international financial institutions like the

World Bank and IMF had on the policy making process of the developing country clarifies some significant characteristics of the neoliberal paradigm: financial strategies and policies have the first priority; sound financial policies are the main guarantor of national development; and the international factors are the primary mover of development, dominant on the local and domestic factors (Chandler 2010:147; World

Bank 1981: 121).

34

2.2.4 Revision of Washington Consensus and More Recent Approaches

The Washington Consensus did not initially emphasize political considerations and democracy because the World Bank was prohibited from political involvements according to its own regulations (World Bank 1989). However, numerous criticisms accused it of promoting repressive practices, especially in some countries where liberalization and curbing labor unions eventuated in violent protests (Harvey 2005;

Beckman 1992, Fourie 2012).

After a backlash from many developing countries, the Washington Consensus changed its policy in the 1990s. Some Scandinavian countries and Canada started conditioning their financial aid to some political considerations, and by 1992 the World

Bank adopted “good governance” as synonymous with sound development management, and a reference to this concept is now mandatory in almost all the World Bank’s reports

(Leftwich 1994). Also, the IMF suggested in 1996 that "promoting good governance in all its aspects, including by ensuring the rule of law, improving the efficiency and accountability of the public sector, and tackling corruption,” was essential to a framework within which economies can prosper (International Monetary Fund 2005).

The acceptance of good governance as a component or precondition of development signals a fundamental change in the definition of development and its extension to matters such as democracy and human rights (Przeworski 2000; Sen 1999).

Meanwhile, in the 1990s, this change was associated with the emergence of the concept of Human Development, which was connected to ’s interpretation of development and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (United Nations

Development Program, 1990).

35

Sen’s ideas, which are summarized in his seminal book, Development as Freedom

(1999), defines development as enlargement of people’s choices and capabilities.

According to Sen, economic growth is not the end of development, but it is a means of development, and human individuals should be at the center of development. From this perspective, the expansion of freedom is considered as both the primary end and the principle means of development, and economic development is considerable as long as it contributes to greater freedom (Sen, 1999:36-44). Sen argues that the concept of freedom has different aspects such as the political (e.g. civil rights, freedom of speech), the economic (e.g. the freedom to conduct , ownership entitlements, economic redistribution), the social (e.g. health service, education), transparency guarantees (e.g. social trust, public transparency) and protective security (e.g. social safety nets), and all of them are related to each other (Sen 1999).

The first Human Development Report was published in 1990, and based on Sen’s interpretation of development, asserts that people are the real wealth of nations, and development is a process of enlarging people’s choices (United Nations Development

Programme 1990). The report also defines three key indicators for measuring human development and those indicators are still the main components of development in United

Nations Development Program: health; education, and income (United Nations

Development Programme 2016).

At the end of the1990s, some criticisms of the Washington Consensus emerged from the inside of it, especially from the World Bank’s senior economist , calling for the expansion of the Washington Consensus to add previously-neglected priorities like poverty reduction, environmental policies, and (Fourie

36

2012). Meanwhile, paying more attention to the role of non-governmental

(NGOs) in the process of development was added to the agenda of development policies

(Rapley 2007).

In September 2000, the 189 member countries of the United Nations gathered in

New York and adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Based on this program, all members committed to making substantial progress toward the eradication of poverty and fulfilling other human development goals by 2015 (Todaro 2012). The

MDGs emphasize that development is more than just increasing income and has a multidimensional nature. This program is the strongest program yet of the international commitment to eradicate global poverty (Todaro 2012). The eight main goals of MDGs include: Halve and hunger; achieve universal ; empower women and promote equality between women and men; reduce child mortality by two-thirds; reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters; reverse the spread of diseases, especially HIV/AIDS and malaria; ensure environmental ; and create a global partnership for development, with targets for aid, trade, and debt relief (United

Nations Development Programme 2000).

Besides aforementioned reformations and revisions, from the end of the 1980s, another dimension of development gradually has been taken into consideration, and that is the effects of development on the environment, and what is called “.” The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in

1987 published a report that was well-known as “Brundtland Report”, which defined sustainable development as development that meets “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (World Commission

37 on Environment and Development, 1987). This implies that human desires and needs must be fulfilled by forms of production and consumption that do not threaten the . The approach of sustainable development was progressively co-opted to a great extent by the mainstream (Knutsson 2009).

Regarding major amendments to neoliberal paradigms and the Washington

Consensus, there is not a consensus on the current paradigm of development (Fourie

2012:257). Some theorists suggest new names for the current definition and agenda. For example, “the post-Washington Consensus” (Stiglitz 1998), or “New York Consensus”

(Sumner 2008:1406). However, other scholars argue that the current practice of development just has tried to bridge the gaps of the Washington Consensus in respect with reduction of poverty, human rights, political liberties, rule of law and so on, and we cannot claim a new paradigm has been established that refutes the assumptions of the

Washington Consensus (Pieterse 1998, Maxwell 2005; Rodrik 2006). They refer to the fact that a free integrated into the global market is still the most desirable form of system that can fulfill the goals of development. However, what is beyond the doubt is that the concept of development, as it is understood today, is much more complicated compared to 70 years ago when it was discussed for the first time, and refers to various dimensions of human life much further than just the economic. In the next chapter, during the operationalization of development, I try to cover its various aspects as much as possible.

38

2.3 Prior Empirical Studies of Anomie

There are a number of studies related to anomie in recent decades, but the majority of them are concerned with a single country, usually the United States, and just a few are cross-national comparisons. In addition, almost none of these studies is from the perspective of development, as the topic of current study is, but usually the main purpose of them is criminological and finding which factors affect the rate of crime in individuals or a certain social groups.

The single country studies examine the effect of different variables on anomie; however, the most common variables are socio-economic related variables such as education, occupation, income and . The general result of these studies is that socioeconomic status has a negative effect on the level of anomie which means the higher the socioeconomic status is, the lower anomie is (Srole 1956; Bell 1957;

Mizruchi 1960; Rhodes 1964; Lee 1974; Carr and Hauser 1976; Ryan 1981). A smaller number of studies show an inconsistent relationship between different components of socioeconomic status and anomie (Wilson 1971; Cao 2007).

Demographic-related variables are another kind of factors in existing studies, but the findings are mixed. Western and Lanyon (1999) found that younger individuals tend to be more anomic than the older ones. Cao’s (2007) study found no association between age and anomie; Lee (1974) discovered a negative relationship between anomie and satisfaction; but Ryan (1981) found no relationship between marital status or happiness and anomie.

39

There are other studies focusing on the effect of religiosity on anomie. Dean

(1968) reveals no significant relationship between religiosity and anomie; however,

Lee (1974), Carr (1976), and Bjarnason (1998) discovered a negative relationship between religiosity and anomie. Another examined variable is social participation/isolation. Mizruchi (1960) and Bell (1957) found a positive significant relationship between social isolation and anomie. There are also other studies finding the negative effect of family support on anomie (Bjarnason 1998; Thorlindsson and

Bjarnason, 1998), and also negative relationship of life satisfaction and anomie (Ryan

1981; Cao 2007).

Among cross-national studies, again, the concern is mainly criminological, even those that focus on the effect of social change on anomie. Surveying 1,092 workers, Form

(1975) compares the level of anomie among the workers of four countries: Italy,

Argentina, India, and the United States. He examines the effect of three main variables on anomie: the extent of industrialization; the workers' place in the skill ; and their pattern of social system involvement. The findings show that anomie is positively related to the level of industrialization; however, the relationship of the two other variables and anomie is different in each country. In the less developed countries anomie was not related to skill level or system involvement, as in the United States, but to political ideology and the ability of workers to see effective linkages between union and national politics (Form 1975). Gill (1999) also compares 20 Latin American countries to explain the rapid growth of evangelical Protestantism in those nations. He applies anomie as one of the independent variables measured by the level of urbanization. The findings do not

40 show a significant relationship between urbanization and level of conversion to

Protestantism (Gill 1999).

All other cross-national studies including - Jenson (2002), Cao (2004), Zhao and

Cao (2010), Cao (2010), Hughes, Schaible and Gibbs (2015), and Schaible and Altheimer

(2016) - use data from the World Value to measure anomie. Jenson (2002) compares 43 countries to test institutional anomie theory’s argument that economic dominance on other institutions increase crimes, and societal investments in programs to buffer citizens from capricious market forces (decommodification) reduce the rate of violent crimes. He found that there is a significant positive relationship between societal investments in social welfare and burglary rates among nations, which is in conflict with institutional anomie theory, and so, he claims the theory suffers from considerable deficiencies (Jenson 2002).

Cao (2004) compares the data of 27 countries to measure anomie. According to his finding, the level of anomie in the United States, in contrary with the usual assumption, is not high compared to many other nations, especially in continental Europe and , and is comparable with other English-speaking countries. His findings also reveal that anomie in men is more than women; in younger persons more than older ones; and in unemployed people with fewer children more than employed ones with more children. He does not find any significant relationship between socioeconomic variables, such as income and education, and anomie (Cao 2004).

Zhao and Cao (2010) examine the level of anomie between 30 countries around the world. The findings reveal that rapid sociopolitical change, mainly the political transition from totalitarianism to democracy, produces a higher level of anomie.

41

Furthermore, the study finds a negative relationship between confidence in authority and anomie, and also between socioeconomic position and anomie (Zhao and Cao 2010).

Also Cao et al. (2010) examine the effect of social support on anomie in 31 European and

North American countries. The results show that the older individual is, the less anomic he or she becomes; men and unmarried and unemployed individuals are more likely to report a stronger sense of anomie than women and married and employed individuals. In addition, those who are better educated, who have confidence in the police, and who work full-time are also less likely to have anomie. So social support is inversely related to variation of anomie ceteris paribus (Cao et al. 2010).

There are two other cross-national studies that use anomie as their independent variables. Hughes et al (2015) examine the effects of economic dominance, indicators of culture and “American exceptionalism” on homicide among a sample of 50 nations to test the institutional anomie theory. The results provide mixed support for the theory: While none of the theoretical predictors exhibits a significant effect on homicide, findings suggest that homicide occurs most often in countries where free-market principles drive the economy and where core cultural commitments are oriented toward achievement, , fetishism of money, and universalism (four components of the American

Dream). However, contrary to IAT, the impact of a free-market economy is not more pronounced in countries with weakened non-economic institutions, and also results provide only limited evidence in support of the American exceptionalism idea (Hughes,

Schaible and Gibbs 2015).

Schaible and Altheimer (2016) test Merton’s theory by examining the degree to which deinstitutionalization, demoralization, and blocked opportunity interact to explain

42 crime in 35 countries. The findings provide support for Merton’s theory as deinstitutionalized or demoralized societal types, which are characterized by an over- emphasis on material goals and the subordination of traditional means for achievement, suffer from higher levels of homicide. However, there is less support for Merton’s argument that social inequality affects crimes (Schaible and Altheimer 2016).

The only work in the existing literature concerned with the effect of development on anomie is Comparative Anomie Research: Hidden Barriers - Hidden Potential for

Social Development published in 1999. While all aforementioned studies consider crime as an effect of anomie, and examine the causal relationship of anomie and crime, in this study crime is an indicator of anomie, and is used to measure it. This book is a part of the

Anomie Research Project of the Swiss for Development and includes some theoretical considerations as well as a set of studies performed by different research teams in six countries. However, the nature of these studies is explorative and each study uses a specific method and approach for each country, and as a result, we can consider them a number of single-country studies, not a united cross-national study.

According to the results of those studies, at the most macro-level, anomie appears as a loss of trust, a withdrawal from the public sphere, and a lawlessness syndrome. At the national level, in China anomie implies social instability, while in Bulgaria social disintegration. At a regional level in Western Africa anomie is seen in the dissolution of established relationships. In South Africa it is seen as the complex of , conflict, and crisis as they appear in different regions in the country. And in Australia it is seen in the relationship between discontent, distrust, forms of social mobility, and social estrangement (Swiss Academy of Development 1999).

43

2.4. The Distinctions of the Current Study

There are some distinctions between the current study and previous studies that show the significance of this study and deficiencies in the existing theoretical literature.

First of all, as it was described, there is a fundamental difference between Durkheim’s intentionality of anomie and that of Merton. For Durkheim anomie is a threat to the existence of society as a system. When a system is not able to regulate its components, the order and solidarity of the system is in danger, and the process of modernization and industrialization may bring about such a danger to society. However, for Merton, and other criminologists who are usually from developed countries, such a concern is not the first priority, and they mainly focus on the explanation of crime. Even with a quick look at the contemporary history of many developing countries we would find that the problem of such societies is much more than crime because they are struggling with instability, revolutions, radical social movements, and disintegration. All of above mentioned studies, except Comparative Anomie Research: Hidden Barriers - Hidden

Potential for Social Development, have been conducted with the intentionality of explaining crime, not the danger to the existence of society that is Durkheim’s concern.

Indeed, the main goal of the current study is returning to such an existential concern.

Second, another deficiency of prior studies of anomie is the absence of the concept of development and problems triggered by it. Almost in none of them development is the main concept and although a few of them examine social change, the definition of this concept is too narrow and does not cover all aspects of development.

For example, Zhao and Cao (2010) consider social change as an independent variable in

44 their studies, but they only focus on the transition from communism to democracy in a number of Eastern European countries as social change.

Third, there are few cross-national studies in the existing literature and it seems that applying the concept of anomie at an international level and testing it in various societies can improve and strengthen this concept and related theories. Finally, this study, with the help of insights derived from earlier studies, is going to try a new method for the operationalization of anomie, and this point has a special significance because anomie is an abstract concept and its operationalization in empirical studies has been problematic.

In sum, it seems this study can fill some considerable gaps in the existing literature and contributes to a more profound understanding of the issues of development and anomie, and also can be beneficial for future studies.

45

Chapter 3

Methods

This chapter includes all details and necessary related to hypotheses, variables, data sources, and sampling technique along with the process of method design and statistical techniques used in the study.

3.1 Hypothesis of Study

The major aim of this thesis is to examine the effects of development on anomie in different countries. Although the particular focus of the study is on developing countries, the study also covers a number of developed and industrialized countries because comparing the level of anomie in such countries with less-developed countries can be insightful.

The main hypothesis of the study, which is based on Durkheim’s theory of anomie, is that at the beginning of the process of development the level of anomie increases and it gradually reduces with more development. So the dependent variable is the level of anomie, and the main independent variable is development.

46

There are also two other subsidiary hypotheses to be tested in the study. The first one is related to the relationship between social inequality and anomie. As Merton (1938) argues, we can expect a positive effect of inequality on anomie, and this relationship will be examined and discussed in the procedure of study. Another subsidiary hypothesis, that actually is a set of three hypotheses, is concerned with Durkheim’s ([1893]1964:276) argument about triggers of the modern division of labor. According to Durkheim, three factors bring about that division of labor in the modern era: concentration of population, increasing the amount and also rapidity of communication and transportation, and expanding urban areas. So the other hypothesis expects a positive effect of these three variables on anomie.

3.2 Variables of Study

3.2.1 Dependent variable

As it was mentioned in the last chapter, I consider anomie as a macro-level concept and define it more closely with how Durkheim formulates it. By macro-level concept, I mean anomie is a systemic characteristic of society that shows itself when we focus on society as a whole and examine its behavior. From this perspective, it is not possible to measure anomie by reducing society into individuals, and surveying them, and then adding the results, as almost all previous empirical studies did. So I need a variable to represent the behavior of society, or country as a whole. In addition, this variable should measure the stability and order of society to find how much society is struggling with turbulence and unrest and how much it is successful to sustain itself.

47

After a broad examination of available data sources, I found the indicator of

Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism as the best variable meeting the above conditions. This variable is one of the indicators of the World Bank’s Worldwide

Governance Indicators (WGI), and measures “perceptions of the likelihood of political instability and/or politically motivated violence, including terrorism” in a country

(Worldwide Governance Indicators. 2014). Although there is not any detailed and step by step description of the operationalization of this indicator in documents of the World

Bank, according to the WGI’s website, this indicator is a construct of other individual variables from different data sources. Those variables include a wide range of instabilities like protests and riots, terrorism, interstate war, civil war and internal conflicts based on religion or ethnic, violent demonstrations and so on. The website also suggests that the project compiles and summarizes “information from over 30 existing data sources that report the views and experiences of citizens, entrepreneurs, and experts in the public, private and NGO sectors from around the world, on the quality of various aspects of governance.”

The indicator of Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism has values between -2.5 (meaning minimum stability) to 2.5 (meaning maximum stability). In order to construct an index of anomie, I multiply its value by -1 and then add 2.5 to it. The result is an index with the value of 0 to 5 (0= Minimum anomie, and 5=Maximum anomie).

3.2.2 Independent Variables

All independent variables of this study are related to different dimensions of development. Schmid (1999) theoretically examines the relationship between

48 development and anomie and suggests four main dimensions for development from this perspective: economic, sociodemographic, political, and cultural. Also, Francis

Fukuyama (2014) in his book, Political Order and Political Decay, suggests to some degree similar dimensions for the study of development: economic, social mobilization, political, and ideological. He argues more detailed discussions about the political dimension and contends this dimension itself is composed of three components: the efficiency of government, rule of law, and accountability of government (Fukuyama

2014).

Based on the above points, at the preliminary stage of this study, I examined a large number of variables covering different dimensions of development. However, many of them did not have any significant relationship with anomie, and at last, I chose a few of them with more effect. In the preliminary stage, I also tested the effect of a few control variables such as the average temperature of each country and the number of guns per capita because these variables have potential to affect violence and instability in a country. However, no significant effect was found between them and anomie. At the final stage, I chose below the variables as the independent variables.

Human Development Index: This index was created in the 1990s based on

Amartya Sen’s formulation of development as it was discussed in the last chapter. The main purpose of this index is to shift the focus of development from the mere economic dimension to include other aspects of human life. (Fukuda-Parr 2003; United Nations

Development Programme 1999). The HDI is composed of three indexes: life expectancy as an index of a long and healthy life; education as an index of knowledge; and gross national income (GNI) as an index of a decent standard living. The education index itself

49 consists of two components: mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling

(United Nations Development Programme 2016). HDI has a value of zero to one; zero means no development while one means the full level of development.

Political Development Index: As it was mentioned before, Francis Fukuyama through his historical and exhaustive discussions argues political development is composed of three components: efficiency of government, rule of law, and the accountability of government. I chose three indicators of the World Bank’s Worldwide

Governance Indicators (WGI) that correspond with Fukuyama’s argument and then constructed an index of political development by calculation of the average of these indicators. These indicators include: Government Effectiveness; Rule of Law; and Voice and Accountability (Worldwide Governance Indicators. 2014). The Cronbach’s Alpha for the new index is 0.874 showing its reliability. Because the value of this index is between

-2.5 and +2.5, I add 2.5, and then, divide the result by five. This final result is a value between zero (zero level of political development) and one (perfect level of political development).

GINI Coefficient: This indicator is the most well-known indicator of social inequality, measuring the deviation of the distribution of income among individuals or households within a country from a perfectly equal distribution (United Nations

Development Programme 2016).While a value of zero represents absolute equality, a value of 100 is equivalent to absolute inequality.

Internet Users: This variable in equivalent to the number of Internet users in a given country per 100 people. The variable can represent the level of communication and exposure to various norms and values in society.

50

Net Migration Rate: This variable is calculated by the ratio of the difference between the number of in-migrants and out-migrants from a country to the average population, expressed per 1,000 people. It can represent the level of geographic mobility of people.

International Economic Integration Rate: The sum of exports and imports of goods and services, expressed as a percentage of (GDP). The variable can represent economic integration and indicates the dependence of domestic producers on foreign demand and of domestic consumers and producers on foreign supply, relative to the country’s economic size (United Nations Development Programme

2016).

Urbanization: The percentage of people living in the urban area of a given country. The criteria of “urban area” are based on the definition of each country (United

Nations Development Programme 2016).

Total Population: This is the de facto population in a country.

Gender Development Index: This index is the ratio of female to male HDI values, and measures gender gaps in human development achievements by accounting for disparities between women and men in three basic dimensions of human development

(United Nations Development Programme 2016). I use this index as an indicator of gender development.

In addition to the above variables that will be used as independent variables of regression analysis, there are four other variables I use as four criteria to divide up countries for ANOVAs. These variables include geographical region, cultural

51 background, level of development, and regime type - which can be considered as independent variables of ANOVAs. I will describe them in detail in section 3.5 related to statistical techniques.

3.3 Data Sources

The data of all above variables are based on two main secondary databases: The

World Bank, and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). All indicators of

WGI, along with Internet users, net migration, and urbanization are from the Worldwide

Development Indicators (WDI) projects available on the World Bank’s website. Other variables’ data are based on UNDP databases. All extracted data are related to the year

2014. However, because of the unavailability of data in a few cases, the data are for 2013 or 2012.

3.4 Sampling Technique

The unit of analysis in the study is the country and the sample includes 100 units.

The method of sampling is cluster sampling applied in different regions of the world. I divide the world into five main regions including Asia, the Middle East and North Africa,

Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and North America, and Latin America, and then randomly select countries from each region. However, the number of selected countries for each group is proportional to the total number of countries in each region. As a result, the number of selected countries in each region is different. In addition, it is natural that most of samples selected from Europe and North America are among established developed countries, and most of samples from other regions, especially Africa, are from developing ones.

52

3.5 Statistical Techniques

The method of study is quantitative and the software used in statistic calculations is SPSS. Besides descriptive statistics, this study utilizes two main inferential statistical techniques to analyze data and draw conclusions. These techniques include one-way

ANOVA and OLS multivariate regression.

Because countries of the world may be categorized into different groups from different perspectives, the use of ANOVA can be considered as an efficient way to compare them statistically. I categorize countries of the world based on four different criteria and apply an ANOVA for each grouping. The first categorization is based on the geographical region to find if there is a significant difference between the means of anomie in different regions of the world. As it was mentioned earlier, during the sampling process, I considered five main regions in the world: Europe and North

America, the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and

Asia. At first look, it makes sense to separate North America from Europe, but because the former includes only two countries, statistically it is not possible to consider it as a separated category. The second criterion is cultural background. Although the cultural background is an extremely important variable for the study of anomie, the quantifying of to examine them is problematic and associated with significant deficiencies.

However, a preliminary quantitative examination seems helpful for future and more accurate studies. My main concern is about the Islamic culture because some authors (e.g.

Lewis 1993, 2001, 2004; Huntington 1996) believe the Islamic culture is more resistant than other cultures to accept modernity, and also there is some empirical evidence supporting this idea (Norris and Ingelehart 2002; Gurr et al 2005). This issue may

53 increase the level of anomie in Islamic nations since modern culture has weakened traditional norms and values, but on the other hand, they refuse to accept modernity. I consider all countries of the sample with the majority of the Muslim population as countries with the Islamic background. Besides this group, another five cultural groups, including Western, Latin, Orthodox, Asian (Buddhist, Hindu, Sinic, Japanese), and

African cultures, are defined based on Huntington’s (1996) grouping of countries in the

Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. However, because this matter needs further studies, I will present its results and discussions in Appendix A.

In the third stage, I use the level of development as the criteria of grouping. The

United Nations Development Program (2016) divides countries of the world into four groups based on HDI: low-developed countries with an HDI of less than 0.55; medium- developed countries with an HDI between 0.55 and 0.7; high-developed countries with an

HDI between 0.7 and 0.8; and very-high developed countries with an HDI more than 0.8.

Comparing the level of anomie based on this categorization can provide a general insight concerning the relationship between development and anomie.

In the last stage, I use the variable of “regime type” as the criterion of categorization of countries. This variable is a general indicator of the country’s regime type based on the “polity score.” This score is designed by the Center for Systemic Peace

(2014) and combines scores on democracy and autocracy indices to a single regime indicator. The score captures the regime authority spectrum on a 21-point scale ranging from -10, meaning a traditional and established authoritarian regime, to +10, meaning a consolidated modern democracy. According to the Center for Systemic Peace (2014), the polity score of -10 to -6 indicates an institutionalized autocratic regime; a score of -5 to 0

54 indicates an uninstitutionalized or weak autocratic regime; a score of 1 to 5 indicates an uninstitutionalized or weak democratic regime; and a score of 6 to 10 indicates an institutionalized democracy. The Center for Systemic Peace (2014) also suggests another category related to the countries with a "collapse of central authority." This category includes regimes that have lost the control of more than half of their territory through some combination of human and natural factors, usually due to serious armed challenges, poor performance, and diminished administrative capacity, as we can see in countries like

Syria. The examination of this variable is helpful in the understanding of the role and the nature of government in the process of development.

Because the validity of ANOVA is based on some assumptions, examination of such assumptions before the performing of the analysis seems necessary. Many sources

(e.g. Cochran and Cox 1992; Snedecor and Cochran 1967; Howel 2002) refer to three main assumptions of ANOVA: independence of observations; normality (that is the normal distributions of the residuals); and homogeneity or what is called homoscedasticity (that is the equality of the variance of data in groups). However, only last two assumptions are applicable to the present study. In SPSS, besides the inspection of skewness and kurtosis, I examine the result of Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s test for normality. In order to refute the hypothesis of non-normality, the result of Kolmogorov-

Smirnov’s test must be insignificant. Besides this test, I inspect the result of Levene’s test for homoscedasticity. In order to refute heteroscedasticity, the result of Levene’s test must not be significant. If the Levene’s test would be significant, I have to use the adjusted amount of F provided by Welch’s statistic.

55

Table 3.1 Equations of Regression Models

Models Equation

Model 1: Main Predictors (HDI and Anomie = b0 + b1 * (HDI) + b2 * (Political Development Index) Political Development)

Model 2: Main Predictors + Income Anomie = b0 + b1 * (HDI) + b2 * (Political Development Index)

Inequality + b3 * ()

Anomie = b0 + b1 * (HDI) + b2 * (Political Development Index) Model 3: Main Predictors + + b3 * (Internet users) + b4 * (migration) + b5 * (international Integration with other Cultures economic integration)

Anomie = b0 + b1 * (HDI) + b2 * (Political Development Index) Model 4: Main Predictors + + b3 * (urbanization) + b4* (population) + b5* (Gender Sociodemographic Variables Development Index)

In addition to one-way ANOVA, I perform an OLS multivariate regression technique in the form of four models. The first regression model is related to the main variables of development including HDI and the political development index, and the next three models add three groups of variables to these main variables. The first group includes the Gini coefficient that measures income inequality. The second group includes the rate of Internet users, net migration, and international economic integration because all of these variables are more or less related to interaction with other cultures. The third group is composed of urbanization, total population, and the Gender Development Index since all of them are a kind of sociodemographic variable. Table 1 presents the equation of each regression model.

The validity of the OLS regression technique is also based on a number of assumptions. The most significant of such assumptions include: linear relationship, normality, homoscedasticity, and little multi-collinearity (Cohen et al. 2003; Darper and

Harry 1998; Pindyck and Rubinfeld 1998). In order to check the linear relationship of anomie with the main independent variables, I look at the scatter plots of data (anomie on

56 the y-axis and predictors on the x-axis). Such scatter plots also provide an opportunity to find outliers and remove them. To find outliers I also use Cook's distance value. A value more than one can be considered as an outlier. To check normality of residuals, inspection of skewness and kurtosis, normal P-P or Q-Q plots, and also Kolmogorov-

Smirnov test is useful. To test homoscedasticity in regression analysis, although SPSS does not support any numerical test like Goldfeld-Quandt, the inspection of standardized residual plots (ZPRED on the x-axis and ZRESID on the y-axis) provides a visual tool to check homoscedasticity. To test multi-collinearity, I check Variance Infliction Factor

(VIF), Tolerance and Condition Index. A VIF less than 2.5, a Tolerance more than 0.4, and a Condition Index below 30 can be considered as the acceptable amount of multi- collinearity. Excessive multi-collinearity would be addressed by either removing the variable or combining it with other variables.

In the next chapter, I present the results of different analyses and statistical techniques.

57

Chapter Four

Results

This chapter presents the result of the statistical methods mentioned in the last chapter. First, I start with descriptive data of all variables and of each country, and then I continue with the result of inferential statistics including one-way ANOVAs and regression.

4.1 Descriptive data

The data of variables in terms of each country is presented in Table 4.1 and the descriptive statistics of variables are shown in Table 4.2. Also, the maps in Appendix B present the level of anomie and development in countries of the sample. The average amount of anomie of the sample is 2.897. Central Africa, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen with the value of 5.000 have the maximum level of anomie, and Angola with the amount of 1.23 has the minimum anomie among countries. The average of HDI for countries of the sample is

.665. The maximum of HDI is Norway with the level of .944 and the minimum is Niger with the amount of .348. Also, the average of political development is .459. Switzerland with the amount of .882 and South Sudan with the amount of .137, respectively, have the maximum and the minimum levels of political development.

58

Table 4.1 Variables by Country

Country

Anomie HDI Political Development Index Gini Coefficient Internet Users 100(per people) Net Migration Exports and Imports of (percent GDP) Percent of Urban Population Total Population Gender Development Index Afghanistan 4.96 .465 .231 27.8 6.39 473007 55.4 26.3 31627506 .600 Algeria 3.67 .736 .355 35.3 18.09 -143268 63.4 70.1 38934334 .837 Angola 1.23 .532 .632 42.7 21.26 102322 96.5 43.3 24227524 Argentina 2.42 .836 .447 43.6 64.70 30000 29.3 91.6 42980026 .982 Australia 1.42 .885 .826 30.0 84.56 1023107 103.4 89.3 23464086 .943 Bangladesh 3.38 .570 .369 32.1 9.60 -2226481 46.3 33.5 159077513 .917 Belarus 2.38 .798 .316 26.5 59.02 120535 125.2 76.3 9483000 1.021 Belgium 1.79 .890 .787 33.1 85.00 269998 164.2 97.8 11231213 .975 Bhutan 1.50 .605 .532 38.7 34.37 10000 103.7 37.9 765008 .897 Bolivia 2.86 .662 .386 46.6 39.02 -61794 81.4 68.1 10561887 .931 Botswana 1.48 .698 .593 60.5 18.50 20000 115.0 57.2 2219937 .982 Brazil 2.51 .755 .512 52.7 57.60 15924 27.6 85.4 206077898 .997 Bulgaria 2.42 .782 .524 34.3 55.49 -50000 137.4 73.6 7223938 .991 Cambodia 2.54 .555 .321 31.8 9.00 -149999 139.5 20.5 15328136 .890 Cameroon 3.44 .512 .326 40.7 11.00 -60000 49.6 53.8 22773014 .879 Canada 1.32 .913 .839 33.7 87.12 1175863 61.9 81.7 35543658 .982 Central Africa 5.00 .350 .167 56.3 4.03 10000 33.4 39.8 4804316 .773 Chad 4.03 .392 .238 43.3 2.50 100000 69.6 22.3 13587053 .768 2.01 .832 .742 50.8 72.35 201289 65.5 89.4 17762647 .967 China 2.96 .727 .397 37.0 49.30 -1800000 50.3 54.4 1364270000 .943 Colombia 3.62 .720 .464 53.5 52.57 -144998 38.0 76.2 47791393 .997 Congo, D. R 4.77 .433 .211 44.4 3.00 -95920 74.7 42.0 74877030 .833 Congo, Rep. 2.79 .433 .280 44.4 7.11 -60000 74.7 65.0 4504962 .833 Djibouti 3.22 .470 .285 40.0 10.71 -15996 134.2 77.3 876174 .000 Ecuador 2.51 .732 .379 46.6 43.00 -38001 60.8 63.5 15902916 .980 Egypt 4.08 .690 .326 30.8 31.70 -215681 42.3 43.1 89579670 .868 El Salvador 2.65 .666 .472 41.8 29.70 -240415 72.2 66.3 6107706 .965 Ethiopia 3.74 .442 .357 33.6 2.90 -60001 41.5 19.0 96958732 .840 2.14 .888 .773 31.7 83.75 331555 58.0 79.3 66495940 .987 Gabon 2.30 .684 .362 42.2 9.81 5000 93.6 86.9 1687673 Georgia 2.73 .754 .561 41.4 48.90 -296323 102.3 53.5 3727000 .962 Germany 1.57 .916 .836 30.6 86.19 1249998 85.3 75.1 80982500 .963 Ghana 2.63 .579 .516 42.8 18.90 -49999 89.4 53.4 26786598 .885 2.48 .865 .587 34.7 63.21 -136299 63.4 77.7 10892413 .961 Guatemala 3.14 .627 .362 52.4 23.40 -120001 58.6 51.1 16015494 .949 Guyana 2.66 .636 .456 44.6 37.35 -27278 203.8 28.5 763893 .984 Honduras 3.01 .606 .354 57.4 19.08 -80000 117.5 54.1 7961680 .944 India 3.46 .609 .509 33.6 18.00 -2598218 53.3 32.4 1295291543 .795 Indonesia 2.87 .684 .485 38.1 17.14 -700000 49.5 53.0 254454778 .927 Iran 3.41 .766 .299 38.3 39.35 -300001 53.7 72.9 78143644 .858 Iraq 4.97 .654 .253 29.5 11.30 548666 66.7 69.4 35273293 .787 Italy 2.00 .873 .613 35.5 61.96 528269 54.8 68.8 60789140 .964 Japan 1.48 .891 .797 32.1 90.58 350000 35.1 93.0 127131800 .961 Kazakhstan 2.45 .788 .385 28.6 54.89 159807 64.9 53.3 17289224 1.002 Kenya 3.77 .548 .439 47.7 43.40 -50000 50.9 25.2 44863583 .913 Korea, Rep 2.31 .898 .689 28.9 84.33 300000 102.8 82.4 50423955 .930 Kyrgyzstan 3.28 .655 .346 33.4 28.30 -113963 143.1 35.6 5835500 .961 Liberia 3.13 .430 .333 38.2 5.41 -20000 121.9 49.3 4396554 .789 Libya 4.82 .430 .212 38.2 17.76 -501692 121.9 78.4 6258984 .789 Madagascar 3.04 .510 .330 40.6 3.70 -5000 73.1 34.5 23571713 .945

59

Table 4.1 Variables by Country

Country

Anomie HDI Political Development Index Gini Coefficient Internet Users 100(per people) Net Migration Exports and Imports of (percent GDP) Percent of Urban Population Total Population Gender Development Index Mali 4.24 .419 .369 33.0 7.00 -302449 69.0 39.1 17086022 .776 Mauritania 3.08 .506 .314 40.5 10.70 -20000 133.7 59.3 3969625 .816 Mexico 3.26 .756 .479 48.1 44.39 -523585 64.2 79.0 125385833 .943 Mongolia 1.63 .727 .464 36.5 27.00 -15001 112.2 71.2 2909871 1.028 Morocco 2.89 .628 .440 40.9 56.80 -310624 80.5 59.7 33921203 .828 Mozambique 2.85 .416 .380 45.7 5.94 -25000 70.5 31.9 27216276 .881 Namibia 1.88 .628 .552 61.3 14.84 -1371 104.1 45.7 2402858 .981 Nepal 3.20 .548 .370 32.8 15.44 -372369 48.2 18.2 28174724 .908 Netherland 1.45 .922 .859 28.9 93.17 110006 155.6 89.9 16865008 .947 Nicaragua 2.55 .631 .375 45.7 17.60 -135000 92.6 58.5 6013913 .960 Niger 3.77 .348 .388 31.2 1.95 -28497 64.7 18.5 19113728 .729 Nigeria 4.61 .514 .305 43.0 42.68 -300000 31.0 46.9 177475986 .841 Norway 1.37 .944 .871 26.8 96.30 235665 67.0 80.2 5137232 .996 Pakistan 4.94 .538 .349 29.6 13.80 -1081918 33.1 38.3 185044286 .726 Panama 2.40 .780 .544 51.9 44.92 28105 154.8 66.3 3867535 .996 Paraguay 2.70 .679 .383 48.0 43.00 -86700 94.1 59.4 6552518 .956 Peru 3.02 .734 .452 45.3 40.20 -240000 48.4 78.3 30973148 .947 Philippines 3.20 .668 .499 43.0 39.69 -700000 59.9 44.5 99138690 .977 Romania 2.42 .793 .535 27.3 54.08 -437201 84.5 54.4 19908979 .989 Russia 3.34 .798 .378 39.7 70.52 1117884 50.9 73.9 143819569 1.019 Rwanda 2.60 .483 .432 50.8 10.60 -75001 45.4 27.8 11341544 .957 Saudi Arab 2.74 .837 .414 45.9 63.70 850000 82.4 82.9 30886545 .901 Senegal 2.63 .466 .484 40.3 17.70 -99996 73.6 43.4 14672557 .883 Serbia 2.32 .771 .511 29.7 82.00 397936 92.7 100.0 5469724 .966 Sierra Leone 2.72 .413 .336 35.4 2.10 -21000 107.5 39.6 6315627 .814 Singapore 1.27 .912 .765 46.4 53.50 -99999 358.0 55.5 7130576 .985 South Africa 2.58 .666 .576 65.0 49.00 600000 64.2 64.3 54058647 .948 South Sudan 5.00 .467 .137 46.0 15.90 865000 61.0 18.6 11911184 Spain 2.18 .876 .706 35.8 76.19 -593069 59.7 79.4 46480882 .975 Sudan 4.86 .479 .201 35.3 24.64 -800000 25.7 33.6 39350274 .830 Swaziland 3.02 .531 .366 51.5 27.10 -6000 114.6 21.3 1269112 .879 Sweden 1.43 .907 .861 26.1 87.00 382267 82.7 73.8 8188649 .999 Switzerland 1.26 .930 .882 32.4 28.09 -4029996 132.2 57.3 18772481 .950 Syria 5.00 .594 .195 35.8 92.52 272626 76.5 85.7 9696110 .834 Tajikistan 3.18 .624 .290 30.8 4.86 -199999 87.5 30.9 51822621 .926 Tanzania 3.04 .521 .419 37.8 17.49 -117382 49.5 26.7 8295840 .938 Thailand 3.41 .726 .456 39.4 46.16 -32941 143.8 66.6 10996600 1.000 Tunisia 3.43 .721 .485 35.8 51.04 2000003 103.1 72.9 77523788 .894 Turkey 3.56 .761 .506 40.0 17.71 -150000 57.9 15.8 37782971 .902 Turkmenistan 2.42 .688 .206 40.8 12.20 -25001 117.7 49.7 5307188 Uganda 3.43 .483 .410 44.6 91.61 900000 50.7 82.3 64613160 .886 United Kin 2.06 .907 .820 38.0 87.36 5007887 61.6 81.4 318907401 .965 United States 1.88 .915 .775 41.1 61.46 -30000 30.0 95.2 3419516 .995 Uruguay 1.50 .793 .651 41.3 57.00 -69121 51.3 88.9 30693827 1.018 Uzbekistan 2.29 .675 .442 35.2 43.55 -195001 59.3 36.3 30757700 .945 Venezuela, 3.33 .762 .221 44.8 48.31 -200002 50.4 33.0 90728900 1.030 Vietnam 2.50 .666 .386 35.6 22.55 -50000 163.7 34.0 26183676 Yemen 5.00 .498 .239 35.9 19.89 -219922 82.1 32.5 15245855 .739 Zambia 2.73 .586 .260 57.5 17.34 -34490 81.6 40.5 15721343 .917 Zimbabwe 3.15 .509 .242 50.1 17.49 -117382 86.4 26.7 8295840 .922

60

Table 4.2 Descriptive Data

Variable Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum

Anomie 2.897 .994 1.23 5.00

HDI .6652 .160 .348 .944

Political Development Index .459 .186 .137 .882

Gini Coefficient 39.97 8.45 26.10 65.00

Internet Users (per 100 people) 38.22 27.80 1.95 96.30

Net Migration -23,146 869,769 -4,029,996 5,007,887

Exports and Imports (percent of 82.9 45.3 25.7 358.0 GDP)

Percent of Urban Population 56.8 22.7 15.8 100

Total Population 66,143,953 189,799,093 763,893 1,364,270,000

Gender Development Index .906 .124 0.00 1.03

4.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

As mentioned in the last chapter, four one-way ANOVA analyses were conducted. In each analysis the countries of the sample are grouped based on one criterion variable, and the mean of groups is compared to find if they are significantly different or not. These criterion variables include geographical region, cultural background, the level of development, and regime type. Table 4.3 presents data of these criterion variables by each country.

61

Table 4.3 Criterion Variables for Each Country Cultural Development Country Region Background Level of Regime Type Afghanistan Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic Low Developed Weak Autocracy Algeria Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic High Developed Weak Democracy Angola Africa African Low Developed Weak Autocracy Argentina Latin America Latin Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Australia Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Bangladesh Asia Islamic Medium Developed Weak Democracy Belarus Nor. America and Europe Orthodox High Developed Institutionalized Autocracy Belgium Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Bhutan Asia Eastern Medium Developed Weak Democracy Bolivia Latin America Latin Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Botswana Africa African Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Brazil Latin America Latin High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Bulgaria Nor. America and Europe Orthodox High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Cambodia Asia Eastern Medium Developed Weak Democracy Cameroon Africa African Low Developed Weak Autocracy Canada Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Central Africa Africa African Low Developed Collapse of central authority Chad Africa Islamic Low Developed Weak Autocracy Chile Latin America Latin Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy China Asia Eastern High Developed Institutionalized Autocracy Colombia Latin America Latin High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Congo, D. R Africa African Low Developed Weak Democracy Congo, Rep Africa African Low Developed Weak Autocracy Djibouti Africa Islamic Low Developed Weak Democracy Ecuador Latin America Latin High Developed Weak Democracy Egypt Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic Medium Developed Weak Autocracy El Salvador Latin America Latin Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Ethiopia Africa African Low Developed Weak Autocracy France Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Gabon Africa African Medium Developed Weak Democracy Georgia Nor. America and Europe Orthodox High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Germany Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Ghana Africa African Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Greece Nor. America and Europe Orthodox Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Guatemala Latin America Latin Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Guyana Latin America Latin Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Honduras Latin America Latin Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy India Asia Eastern Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Indonesia Asia Islamic Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Iran Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic High Developed Institutionalized Autocracy Iraq Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic Medium Developed Weak Democracy Italy Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Japan Asia Eastern Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Kazakhstan Asia Orthodox High Developed Institutionalized Autocracy Kenya Africa African Low Developed Institutionalized Democracy Korea, Rep Asia Eastern Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Kyrgyzstan Asia Islamic Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Liberia Africa African Low Developed Institutionalized Democracy Libya Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic Low Developed Collapse of central authority Madagascar Africa African Low Developed Institutionalized Democracy Mali Africa Islamic Low Developed Weak Democracy Mauritania Africa Islamic Low Developed Weak Autocracy Mexico Latin America Latin High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Mongolia Asia Eastern High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Morocco Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic Medium Developed Weak Autocracy Mozambique Africa African Low Developed Institutionalized Democracy Namibia Africa African Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Nepal Asia Eastern Low Developed Institutionalized Democracy

62

Netherland Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Nicaragua Latin America Latin Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Niger Africa Islamic Low Developed Institutionalized Democracy Nigeria Africa Islamic Low Developed Weak Democracy Norway Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Pakistan Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic Low Developed Institutionalized Democracy Panama Latin America Latin High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Paraguay Latin America Latin Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Peru Latin America Latin High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Philippines Asia East Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Romania Nor. America and Europe Orthodox High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Russia Nor. America and Europe Orthodox High Developed Weak Democracy Rwanda Africa African Low Developed Weak Autocracy Saudi Arab Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic Very High Developed Institutionalized Autocracy Senegal Africa Islamic Low Developed Institutionalized Democracy Serbia Nor. America and Europe Orthodox High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Sierra Leone Africa African Low Developed Institutionalized Democracy Singapore Asia Eastern Very High Developed Weak Autocracy South Africa Africa African Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy South Sudan Africa African Low Developed Collapse of central authority Spain Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Sudan Africa Islamic Low Developed Weak Autocracy Swaziland Africa African Low Developed Institutionalized Autocracy Sweden Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Switzerland Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Syria Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic Medium Developed Collapse of central authority Tajikistan Asia Islamic Medium Developed Weak Autocracy Tanzania (Unite Africa African Low Developed Weak Autocracy Thailand Asia Eastern High Developed Weak Autocracy Tunisia Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Turkey Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Turkmenistan Asia Islamic Medium Developed Institutionalized Autocracy Uganda Africa African Low Developed Weak Autocracy United Kin Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy United States Nor. America and Europe Western Very High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Uruguay Latin America Latin High Developed Institutionalized Democracy Uzbekistan Asia Islamic Medium Developed Institutionalized Autocracy Venezuela, Latin America Latin High Developed Weak Democracy Vietnam Asia Eastern Medium Developed Institutionalized Autocracy Yemen Mid. East and Nor. Africa Islamic Low Developed Collapse of central authority Zambia Africa African Medium Developed Institutionalized Democracy Zimbabwe Africa African Low Developed Weak Democracy

4.2.1 Grouping Based on Geographical Region

A one-way between groups ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of

regions of countries on anomie. All samples were divided into five groups according to

their regions including Europe and North America, Middle East and North Africa, Latin

America, Asia, and Africa. The test for normality, examining standardized skewness and

Kurtosis, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s test, indicated the data were statistically

63

Table 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations of Anomie by Region

Region N Mean SD

Europe and North America 20 1.998 .555 Middle East and North Africa 13 4.114 .868 Latin America 17 2.715 .510 Asia 19 2.598 .712 Africa 31 2.897 .967 Total 100 3.250 .994 normal. However, the homogeneity of variance was not significant, Levene’s F(4, 95) =

3.132, p = 0.018, indicating that this assumption underlying the application of ANOVA was not met, and consequently, I have to examine Welch’s adjusted F. Based on the result of the Welch statistic, there is a statistically significant effect of region on anomie at the p < .001 level, F(4, 42.240) = 18.338. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .425. This amount, based on Cohen’s (1988) guidelines is a very large effect size, meaning 42.5 % of the variance in anomie was caused by the regions. The mean and standard deviation of each group is presented in Table 4.4. As we see, the maximum anomie is related to the Middle East and North Africa (Mean = 4.114) and the minimum anomie is associated with North America and Europe (Mean = 1.998).

Post-hoc comparisons using Games-Howel procedures were used to determine which pairs of the five group means differed. Games-Howel’s test suggests that the mean of anomie for North America and Europe is significantly different from all other regions.

The mean of anomie for the Middle East and North Africa is significantly different from all regions except Africa. The mean of anomie for Latin America is significantly different from those of North America and Europe, and the Middle East and North Africa. The mean of anomie for Asia is also significantly different from North America and Europe,

64

Table 4.5 Games-Howel Post hoc Results of Anomie by Region

Mean Differences ( X i − X k )

Group Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Nor. America and Europe 1.998 - -2.116*** -.717** -.600* -1.252***

2. Mid. Est and North Africa 4.114 2.112*** - 1.399** 1.516*** .863

3. Latin America 2.715 .717** -1.399** - .117 -.535

4. Asia 2.598 .600* -1.516*** -.117 - -.652

5. Africa 3.250 1.252*** -.863 .535 .652 - *= p<.05; **= p<.01;***= p<.001

and the Middle East and North Africa. And finally, the mean of anomie for Africa is

significantly different only from that of North America and Europe. The results of

Games-Howel’s test is presented in Table 4.5.

4.2.2 Grouping Based on Level of Development

At the third stage, a one-way between groups ANOVA was conducted to examine the

impact of level of development on anomie. This time, all samples were divided into four

groups according to their level of development including low, medium, high, and very

high. The test for normality, examining standardized skewness and Kurtosis, and the

Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s test, indicated the data were statistically normal. However, like

earlier stages, the homogeneity of variance was not significant, Levene’s F(3, 96) =

3.847, p = 0.12, indicating that this assumption underlying the application of ANOVA

was not met, and as a result, I have to examine Welch’s adjusted F. Based on the result of

the Welch statistic, there is a statistically significant effect of level of development on

anomie at the p < .001 level F(3, 53.015) = 18.338. The effect size, calculated using eta

65

Table 4.6 Means and Standard Deviations of Anomie

Level of Development N Mean SD

Low 30 3.669 .966 Medium 28 2.884 .811 High 22 2.831 .624 Very High 20 1.839 .456 Total 100 2.897 .994

squared, was .414. This value, based on Cohen (1988), is a very large effect size, meaning 41.4 % of the variance in anomie was caused by the level of development. The mean and standard deviation of each group are presented in Table 4.6. According to the results, the maximum anomie is associated with the low-developed countries (Mean =

3.669) and the minimum anomie is related to very-high developed countries (Mean =

1.839).

Post-hoc comparisons using Games-Howel procedures were used to determine which pairs of the four group means differed. Games-Howel’s test suggests that the mean of anomie for low-developed countries is significantly different from countries with all other levels of development. The mean of anomie for medium developed countries is

Table 4.7. Games-Howel Post hoc Results of Anomie by Levels of Development

Mean Differences ( X i − X k )

Group Mean 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Low 3.669 - .785* .838** 1.840*** 2. Medium 2.884 -.785* - .053 1.055*** 3. High 2.831 -.838* -.053 - 1.002*** 4. Very High 1.839 -1.840*** -1.055*** -1.002*** - *= p<.05; **= p<.01;***= p<.001

66 significantly different from that of low developed and very high development countries.

The mean of anomie for high developed countries is also significantly different from that of low developed and very high development countries. And finally, the mean of anomie for very high developed countries is significantly different from countries with all other levels of development. The results of Games-Howel test is presented in Table 4.7.

4.2.3 Grouping Based on Regime Type

At the final stage, a one-way between groups ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of regime type on anomie. All samples were divided into five groups based on their types of regimes, including institutionalized autocratic, weak autocratic, weak democracy, institutionalized democracy, and without central authority. The test for normality, examining standardized skewness and Kurtosis, and the Kolmogorov-

Smirnov’s test, indicated the distribution of the fifth group was not normal, so that group, including Central Africa, Libya, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, was removed.

The homogeneity of variance for the remaining four groups was significant, Levene’s

F(3, 91) = 1.719, p = 0.169, indicating that this assumption underlying the application of

ANOVA was met. Based on the result, there is a statistically significant effect of regime type on anomie at the p < .01 level, F (3, 91) = 6.169. The effect size, calculated using eta

Table 4.8 Means and Standard Deviations of Anomie by Regime Type

Regime Type N Mean SD

Institutionalized Autocratic 9 2.686 .374 Weak Autocratic 16 3.252 1.031 Weak Democracy 14 3.395 1.001 Institutionalized Democracy 56 2.520 .768 Total 95 2.788 .829

67

Table 4.9 Games-Howel Post hoc Results of Anomie by Regime Type

Mean Differences ( X i − X k )

Group Mean 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Institutionalized Autocratic 2.686 - -.566 -.709 .166 2. Weak Autocratic 3.252 .566 - -.142 .732* 3. Weak Democracy 3.395 .709 .142 - .874** 4. Institutionalized Democracy 2.520 -.166 -.732* -.874** - *= p<.05; **= p<.01;***= p<.001 squared, was .169. This amount, according to Cohen (1988), is a large effect size meaning 16.9 % of the variance in anomie was caused by the regime type. The mean and standard deviation of each group are presented in Table 4.8. Regarding the results, the maximum anomie is associated with the weak democratic regimes countries (Mean =

3.395) and the minimum anomie is related to institutionalized democracies (Mean =

2.520).

Post-hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD procedures were used to determine which pairs of the four group means differed. Tukey’s test indicates that the mean of anomie for institutionalized autocratic regimes is not significantly different from other regimes. The mean of anomie for weak autocratic regimes is significantly different only from institutionalized democracies. The mean of anomie for weak democracies is significantly different only from that of institutionalized democracies. And finally, the mean of anomie for institutionalized democracies is significant from that of weak autocracies and weak democracies. The results of Tukey’s test is presented in Table 4.9.

68

4.3 Regression Analysis

Before presenting the results of regression analysis, the correlation matrix of

variables is presented in the Table. 4.10. The salient point is that because of the high

amount of multi-collinearity between HDI and Political Development Index, I had to

combine these two variables and construct a new index of development based on both. As

a result, I calculated the average of HDI and Political Development Index (both have

values between 0 and 1) and constructed a new Development Index. The Cronbach’s

Alpha for this construct is .856 showing its reliability. As the correlation matrix indicates,

nations with a higher level of development tend to have less anomie, and this correlation

is strong (r = .769). Also, because of the problem of normality, I calculated the natural

log of three variables: net migration, international interaction, and total population, and

replaced them with their original data.

Table 4.10. Correlation Matrix (N= 100 countries)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Anomie 1 -.769*** 0.22 -.468*** .114 -.345*** -.425*** .210* -.497*** 2. Development 1 -.225* .776*** .293** .129 .627*** .114 .512*** Index 3. Gini Coefficient 1 -.230* -.418*** .-.031 -.088 -.205* .102

4. Internet Users 1 .385*** -.024 .724*** .181 .433***

5. Migration (log) 1 -.239* .163 .643*** .085 6. International 1 .031 -.564*** -.006 Integration (log)

7. Urbanization 1 .009 .215*

8. Total Population 1 .112 (log) 9. Gender 1 Development Index *= p<.05; **= p<.01;***= p<.001

69

Figure 4.1 Relationship between Anomie and Development

Looking at the scatter plot of data (Figure 1) suggests that the relationship between development and anomie cannot be explained accurately by a straight line. As a result, instead of using liner regression, I performed two curvilinear regressions with quadratic and cubic terms, and they presented more accurate estimation compared to the linear regression. Although the curvilinear with cubic term had the best result, there was a high amount of multi-collinearity between the Development Index and its cubic term, and even the standardization technique to reduce multi-collinearity, based on subtracting the mean of the independent variable from the independent variable’s values and then calculating its exponential terms, could not reduce the level of multi-collinearity. Finally,

I chose the curvilinear regression with quadratic

70

Table 4.11 OLS Curvilinear Multivariate Regression for the Effects of Development Related Variables on Anomie (N=100 countries) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Variable b Beta b Beta b Beta b Beta - -5.077*** -5.181*** -6.095*** Development Index -.830 -.847 -.997 5.541*** -.906 (.430) (.426) (.524) (.567) Development Index .118* .092 .079 .126* .144 .112 .096 .154 (squared) (.058) (.058) (.047) (.053) -.016* Gini Coefficient -.137 (.008) .006 Internet Users .157 (.003) .180*** Migration (log) .287 (.036) International -.311* -.149 Integration (log) (.114) .005 Urbanization .119 (.003) Total Population .223*** .326 (log) (.038) -.640* Gender Development -.078 (.564) Constant 5.632*** 6.360*** 5.232*** 2.411**

R2 .608 .625 .756 .720 *= p<.05; **= p<.01;***= p<.001; [For unstandardized coefficients the standard errors are in parentheses] term to have the advantage of both more accurate estimation and less multi-collinearity.

Figure 4.1 shows the scatter plot of data with the quadratic estimation.

Also, Table 4.11 presents the result of OLS curvilinear regression analysis in terms of four different models. I intended to add a fifth model including all the significant factors of the previous four models; however, because of the problem of multi- collinearity, I had to remove it. Model One includes only the main independent variable of development and shows the standardized effect of the Development Index (Beta) on anomie is -.830 and this effect is significant (p < .001). Also, the quadratic term of the

Development Index has a positive and significant effect on anomie (Beta= .144, p < .05).

71

Model Two is related to the Gini coefficient suggesting a negative effect of social inequality on anomie (Beta= -.137, p < .05) that is against Merton’s theory of anomie and needs more discussion in the next chapter.

Model Three is related to the interaction of a nation with other countries. The effect of

Internet users per capita is positive (Beta= .157), but this effect is not significant. The effects of migration and international economic integration, respectively, are positive and negative (Beta= .287; Beta= -.149) and are significant (p < .001, p < .05). The last model is related to demographic variables. Based on the result, urbanization has a positive, but not significant, effect on the anomie (Beta= .119); the population of a country has a positive and significant effect on anomie (Beta= .326, p < .001); and gender development has a negative and significant effect on anomie (Beta= -.078, p <.05).

In the next chapter, I discus these effects as well as the results of the ANOVAs, and draw final conclusions.

72

Chapter Five

Discussion and Conclusion

5.1 Findings and Implications

The main goal of the current study is to inspect the relationship between development and anomie, and I examined this relationship from different perspectives. At first, I examined the matter by grouping countries of the sample based on different criteria. As the first one-way ANOVA suggests, geographical region has a significant effect on the level of anomie. According to the result, the level of anomie in the North

America and Europe (mean = 1.998) is significantly less than other regional groups. The highest level of anomie (mean= 4.114) is associated with the Middle East and North

Africa, and that amount is significantly more than all groups except Africa (mean =

3.250). Therefore, it appears that the level of anomie in a given country depends on which region of the world the country is located. This finding suggests that, besides internal factors of society, external factors play a role in the level of anomie, and countries located in the Middle East and North Africa encounter more unfavorable external conditions.

73

According to the results of fourth ANOVA, the type of regime in each country also plays a significant statistical role in the level of anomie; however, this effect is not as strong as other criteria of grouping. Based on the results, anomie in institutionalized democracies is the least (mean = 2.520), and is significantly less that other groups except institutionalized autocracies (mean = 2.686). The highest level of anomie is related to weak democracies (mean = 3.395). This result is consistent with Goldstone (2001) and also Huntington’s (1968) argument that the degree of government is more important than the form of government. Indeed, institutionalized autocracies experience less anomie than weak democracies.

According to the main hypothesis, drawn from Durkheim’s theory of anomie, I expected increasing anomie from the beginning of the process of development (first), and then, decreasing anomie at higher levels of development (second). Based on the result, it seems that only the second part of that hypothesis is directly testable by the procedure of the study. The results of the third one-way ANOVA, grouping countries in terms on their level of development, and also the regression analysis corroborate the second part of the hypothesis.

The third ANOVA’s results show that there is not a significant difference between the mean of anomie in countries with medium and high levels of development. However, the mean of anomie in countries with low levels of development (mean = 3.669) is significantly higher than other groups. Also, the mean of anomie in very high developed countries (mean = 1.839) is significantly lower than other groups. Both of these are consistent with the second part of the hypothesis. In addition, regarding the regression

74 analysis, in all models, the development index has a strong significant negative effect on anomie, and again, this is in line with the second part of the hypothesis.

It seems that to examine the first part of the hypothesis, we encounter a more complicated situation. Because all of the sample’s countries, and more generally the vast majority of countries currently in the world, have achieved at least some degree of development (the minimum HDI in the samples is .348 out of 1), we may not examine what happens at the very beginning of the process of development. In other words, testing the first part of the hypothesis needs data from the situation where countries are in the traditional phase or just started the transition from the traditional phase. Regarding the fact that such cases are very rare in the current world, testing that hypothesis is impossible unless we have access to historical data of countries and study their conditions in the past. Also, future longitudinal studies of cases may be very helpful in this respect.

According to another hypothesis of the study, there should be a positive relationship between social inequality (Gini coefficient) and anomie. The results do not support the hypothesis. Based on the results, there is a weak positive correlation between

Gini coefficient and anomie that is not significant (r = .22); also, Model Two of the regression analysis suggests a negative effect of the Gini coefficient on anomie (Beta = -

.137, p < .05). These results are inconsistent with Merton’s view of inequality and anomie in which he argues that the unequal distribution of legitimate means puts pressure on some groups deprived of access to those means, and this fact encourages them to behave in a deviant manner. Zhao and Cao (2010) also did not find any significant relationship between inequality and anomie in a cross-national study. On the other hand, as Vold et al (2002) argue, Durkheim believes inequality is a natural and inevitable part

75 of human life, and there is not any association between social inequality and deviant behavior, and this point may be another explanation for the result. Regarding the fact that the correlation of inequality and anomie is positive, but the coefficient of regression is negative, we may argue that that relationship depends considerably on the level of development, and other controlling factors should be considered. Therefore, further studies in future on this topic can be insightful.

Another hypothesis of the study, that has three subsets, is drawn from Durkheim’s argument suggesting three factors as triggers of a more complex form of division of labor: concentration of population, the growth in the number and rapidity of communication and geographic mobilization, and the expantion of cities (Durkheim

[1893]1964:276). I consider total population as an indicator of the first factor; Internet users and migration as an indicator of second factor; and percent of people living in urban areas as the indicator of the third one. The results of regression analysis confirm all

Durkheim’s three arguments; however, the coefficients of regression for Internet users

(Beta = .157, p > .05) and urbanization (Beta = .119, p > .05) are not significant while the coefficient of population (Beta = .326, p < .001) and of migration (Beta = .287, p < .001) are significant.

In addition to those factors, there are two other factors with significant negative effects on anomie: international economic integration (Beta = -.149, p < .05) and gender development (Beta = -.078, p < .05). The effect of international economic integration is more evidence that external factors can influence anomie. The possible explanation for this effect is that cooperation with other nations enhances trust and establishes common norms, and consequently, decreases anomie. However, one may argue that that

76 cooperation is not the cause, but the effect of common norms, and countries with more similar conditions and backgrounds (e.g. Western countries) have more cooperation with each other and this fact decreases anomie. Therefore, it seems that the effect of international economic integration on anomie is a topic worthy of further studies. Gender development is also another complicated factor needing more examination. If we assume that equality based on gender is a modern value, this factor may disturb accepted norms of a traditional society, but in higher levels of development by providing more equality, as Merton argues, can reduce anomie. So future studies seem necessary to examine the effect of this factor in more specific cases and also in longitudinal form. This is especially important because there is almost nothing in the existing literature to examine the effect of this factor as well as international economic integration on anomie.

5.2. Limitations of the Current Study and Conclusions

There are a few considerable limitations associated with this study. First of all, social change and development are matters happening over time, and consequently, an efficient approach to analyze them is to take a longitudinal strategy to examine different stages of change and development over time. Because of the cross-sectional nature of the current study, it fails to consider this important aspect of the matter. One important advantage of a longitudinal approach is to provide the ability of comparing one case to itself over time, and at the same time, to other cases. An ideal study may select a sample of countries and examine the relationship between development and anomie from 100 years ago up to the present time while comparing the cases with themselves over time as well as with other cases in different sections of that period. By taking this strategy we may realize more accurately which factors enhance or slow development, and influence

77 the relationship between development and anomie. We also would be able to follow and examine the sequences of policies and their outcomes in each country.

The other pitfall of the current study is related to the unit of analysis. There are some countries in the sample with a population of around one million people, while there are other countries with several hundred million people. However, the nature of a cross- national study considers all of them as the same unit. In an ideal study, a country like

China with around 1.3 billion population should have much more weight than a country like Guyana or Bhutan with less than one million population. In addition, it is conceivable that the dynamics of a large country like Russia are different from a small country like Djibouti. Maybe dividing larger or more populated countries into smaller regions can help for more accurate analysis, but this strategy is also associated with other problems.

In addition, because the method of work is quantitative, the study suffers from general weaknesses of a quantitative approach. Quantifying of social variables, particularly those related to cultures like cultural background, makes the result less accurate and reliable. Furthermore, the historical idiosyncratic characteristic of each nation are lost in such an approach. Therefore, further in-depth qualitative and historical studies with the focus on each case can be considered as necessary complements for the current study.

In sum, I can argue that the nature of the current study is explorative because many of its findings are new without any precedence in previous studies and need more specific and deeper examination. I strongly believe that anomie, as a systemic and macro- level concept as Durkheim formulated it, is a powerful concept for the analysis of society

78 because it targets the most fundamental issue of the existence of society and that is the matter of social solidarity and . However, after Merton and his followers this concept has been reduced only to a theory to explain different forms of crimes in developed countries and has been diverted from its original purpose. I hope this study takes a small step toward a new Durkheimian interpretation of anomie.

79

References

Abrahamsson, H. 2003. Understanding world order and structural change: poverty,

conflict, and the global arena. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Agnew, Robert S. and Helen Raskin White. 1992. An Empirical Test of General Strain

theory. 30:475-499.

Amsden, Alice H. 1979. “Taiwan’s . A Case of Etatisme and a

Challenge to Dependency Theory.” Modern China 5(3), pp. 341–379.

Baumer, Eric P. and Regan Gustafson. 2007. “Social Organization and Instrumental

Crime: Assessing the Empirical Validity of Classical and Contemporary Anomie

Theories.” Criminology 45 (3): 617-663.

Beckman, Bjorn. 1992. “The World Bank and the Politics of African Adjustment,” Pp.

83-105 in Authoritarianism, Democracy, and Adjustment: The Politics of

Economic Reform in Africa, edited by Peter Gibbon, Yusuf Bangura and Arve

Ofstad. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute,

Bell, Wendell. 1957. “Anomie, Social Isolation, and Class Structure.” Sociometry

20(2):105-116

Bendix, Reinhard. 1967. “Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered.” Comparative Studies

in History and Society 9:294-346.

80

Bernard, Thomas J. 1987. “Testing Structural Strain Theories.” Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency 24(4):262-80.

Bjarnason, Thoroddur. 1998. “Parents, Religion and Perceived Social Coherence: A

Durkheimian Framework of Adolescent Anomie.” Journal for the Scientific Study

of Religion 37(4): 742-754.

Brohman, John. 1996. Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of

Development. Oxford: Blackwell

Cao, Liqun. 2007. “Returning to Normality: Anomie and Crime in China.” International

Journal of Comarative Criminology 51(1):1-12

Cao, Liqun. 2004. “Is American Society More Anomic? A Test of Merton’s Theory with

Cross-National Data.” International Journal of Comparative and Applied

Criminal 28(1):15-32.

Cao Liqun et al. 2010. “Social Support and Anomie: A Multilevel Analysis of Anomie in

Europe and North America.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology 54(4):625-39

Car, Leslie G., and william Hauser. 1976. “Anomie and Religiosity: an empirical Re-

Examination.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 15(1):69-74

Castells, M.1996. The Rise of the Networked Society, Oxford: Blackwell.

Center for Systemic Peace (2014). “State Fragility Index and Matrix.” Vienna, VA:

Center for Systemic Peace. Retrieved July 14, 2016

(http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html)

81

Chandler, David. 2010. International State building: The Rise of Post-Liberal

Governance. London: Taylor & Francis.

Clarke, C. 2002. “The Latin American structuralists.” Pp.92-6 in The Companion to

Development Studies, edited by V. Desai & R. B. Potter. London Harold Arnold.

Clinard, Marshall B. 1964. “The Theoretical Implications of Anomie and Deviant

Behavior,” Pp.1-56 in Anomie and Deviant Behavior, edited by Clinard, Marshal

B. New York:

Cloward, Richard A. 1959. “Illegitimate means, anomie, and deviant behavior.”

American Sociological Review 24(2):164-76.

Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd E. Ohlin. [1960] 2003. “Delinquency and Opportunity.”

Pp. 278-83 in Criminological Theory: Past to Present, edited by Cullen, Francis

T. and Robert Agnew. CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Cochran, William G.and Cox, Gertrude M. 1992. Experimental Designs. New York:

Wiley.

Cohen, Albert K. [1955] 2003. “Delinquent Boys.” Pp. 189-90 in Criminological Theory:

Past to Present, edited by Cullen, Francis T. and Robert Agnew. CA: Roxbury

Publishing Company.

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

82

Cohen, Jacob, Cohen Patricia, West, Stephan G., and Aiken, Leona S. 2003. Applied

Multiple Regression/correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cole, Stephen. 1975. “The Growth of Scientific Knowledge: Theories of Deviance as a

Case Study.” Pp. 175–220 in The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of

Robert K. Merton, edited by Lewis A. Coser. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Coser, Lewis A. 1964. The Functions of . New York, NY: Free Press

Coser, Lewis A. 1971. Masters of Sociological Thoughts. New York: The Free Press.

Cullen, Francis T. 1994. “Social Support as an Organizing Concept for Criminology.”

Justice Quarterly 11 (4): 527-559.

Cullen, Francis T., and Robert Agnew. 2003. Criminological Theory: Past to Present.

Roxbury Publishing Company.

Draper, Norman R. and Smith, Harry. 1998. Applied Regression Analysis. New York:

Wiley.

Dean, Dwight G. 1968. “Anomie, Powerlessness, and Religious Participation.” Journal

for the Scientific Study of Religion 7(2):252-254.

Durkheim, Emile. [1893] 1933. The Division of Labor in Society, New York: Macmillan

Durkheim, Emile. [1893] 1984. The Division of Labor in Society, New York: The Free

Press.

83

Durkheim, Emile. [1893] 1964. The Division of Labor in Society, New York: The Free

Press.

Durkheim, Emile. [1897] 1951. Suicide: A study in Sociology, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Durkheim, Emile. [1897] 1979. Suicide. New York: The Free Press.

Durkheim, Emile. [1897] 2006. On Suicide, New York: Penguin Books.

Durkheim, Emile. [1905]1976. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, New York:

Collier Books.

Eisenstadt, S. N. 1964. Breakdowns of Modernization. Economic Development and

Cultural Change 12:345-67

Featherstone, Richard, and Mathieu Deflem. 2003. “Anomie and Strain: Context and

Consequences of Merton’s Two Theories.” Sociological Inquiry 73(4):471-89.

Form, William H. 1975. “The Social Construction of Anomie: A Four-Nation Study of

Industrial Workers.” The American Journal of Sociology 80(5):1165-91.

Fourie, Elsje. 2012. “New Maps for Africa? Contextualising the ‘Chinese Model’ within

Ethiopian and Kenyan Paradigms of Development.” PhD Dissertation, School of

International Studies, University of Trento, Italy

Frank, André Gunder. 1967. and Underdevelopment in Latin America:

Historical Studies of Chile and Brazil. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko. 2003. “The Human Development Paradigm: operationalizing Sen's

ideas on capabilities.” 9 (2–3):301–17.

84

Fukuyama, Francis. 2014. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial

Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and

Giroux

Gibbones, Don C. 1987. Society, Crime, and Cultural Behavior, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goldstone, Jack A. 2001. “Toward a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory.”

Annual Review of 4(1):139-187.

Gill, Anthony. 1999. “Government Regulation, Social Anomie and Protestant Growth in

Latin America.” Rationality and Society 11(3):287-316.

Gurr, T., Woodward, M. and Marshall, M. 2005 “Forecasting Instability: Are Ethnic

Wars and Muslim Countries Different?” Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton,

Washington: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political

Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park. Retrieved July 14, 2016

(http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p40361_index.html)

Gusfield, J. R. 1967. “Tradition and Modernity.” American Journal of Sociology (1):351-

362.

Guyau, J. 1897. The Non-Religion of the Future: A Sociological Study. New York, NY:

H. Holt.

Gaddis, John 1998. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

85

Held, D., Goldblatt, D., McGrew, A., & Perraton, J. 1999. Global Transformations:

Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.

Hettne, Björn. 1995. and the Three Worlds: Towards an

International Political Economy of Development, Harlow; New York: Longman.

Hettne, Björn. 2009. Thinking about Development. London: Zed books.

Howell, David C. 2002. Statistical methods for psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury-

Thomson Learning.

Hughes, Lorine A., Lonnie M. Schaible, and Benjamin R. Gibbs. 2015. “Economic

Dominance, the “American Dream,” and Homicide: A Cross-National Test of

Institutional Anomie Theory.” Sociological Inquiry 85(1):100-128.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven, CT:

Yale

Huntington, Samuel P. 1971. “The Change to Change: Modernization, Development, and

Politics” 3(3):283–322.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1976. “The Change to Change: Modernization, Development and

Politics,” Pp. 25-61 in Comparative Modernization: A Reader, edited by Cyril E.

Black. New York: Free Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World

Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Inkeles, A. 1969. “Participant citizenship in six developing countries.” The American

Political Science Review 63:1120-1141.

86

International Monetary Fund. 2005. “The IMF's Approach to Promoting Good

Governance and Combating Corruption — A Guide.” New York: International

Monetary Fund. Retrieved August 14, 2016

(https://www.imf.org/external/np/gov/guide/eng/index.htm).

Jensen, Gary. 2002. “Institutional Anomie and Societal Variations in Crime: A Critical

Appraisal.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 22(7-8):45-74.

Knutsson, Beniamin. 2009. “The Intellectual History of Development: Towards a

Widening Potential Repertoire.” Perspectives 13:1-46.

Lanier, Mark M. and Stuart Henry. 2004. Essential Criminology. CO: Westview Press

Lee, Grar R. 1974. “Marriage and Anomie: A Causal Argument.” Journal of Marriage

and the Family 35(3):523-532.

Lee, Grar R. and Robert W. Clyde. 1974. “Religion, Socioeconomic Status, and

Anomie.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13(1):35-47.

Lerner, Daniel. 1958. The Passing of Traditional Society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Leftwich, Adrian. 1994. “Governance, the State and the Politics of Development,”

Development and Change 25(2):363–386.

Levine, Donald N. 1985. The Flight from Ambiguity: Essays in Social and Cultural

Theory. University of Chicago Press.

Lewis, Bernard. 1993. Islam and the West. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, Bernard. 2001. What Went Wrong? : Western Impact and Middle Eastern

Response. New York: Oxford University Press.

87

Lewis, Bernard. 2004. The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. New York:

Random House Trade Paperbacks.

Lim, Linda and Eng F. Pang. 1991. Foreign Direct Investment and in

Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Lipset, Seymour M. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy.” American Political

Science Review 53(1):69-105.

Mansfield, P. 2004. “Anomie and disaster in corporate culture: The impact of mergers

and acquisitions on the ethical climate of marketing organizations.” Marketing

Management Journal 14(2):88-99.

Maxwell, Simon. 2005. “The Washington Consensus is Dead! Long Live the Meta-

Narrative!” London: Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved July 14, 2016

(http:// www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2009/02964.pdf)

Meier, G. M., 1989, Leading Issues in Economic Development, New York: Oxford

University Press.

Merton, Robert. K. 1938. “Social structure and anomie.” American Sociological Review

3:672-682.

Merton, Robert K. 1949a. “Social Structure and Anomie: Revisions and Extensions.” Pp.

226–57 in The Family: Its Functions and Destiny, edited by Ruth N. Anshen.

New York: Harper & Brothers.

Merton, Robert K. 1949b. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free

Press.

88

Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.

Merton, Robert K. 1959. “Social Conformity, Deviation, and Opportunity Structures: A

Comment on the Contributions of Dubin and Cloward.” American Sociological

Review 24:177–89.

Merton, Robert K.1964. “Anomie, Anomia, and Social Interaction: Contexts of Deviant

Behavior.” Pp. 213-42, in Anomie and Deviant Behavior: A Discussion and

Critique, edited by Marshall B.Clinard. New York: The Free Press.

Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.

Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. 1994. Crime and the American dream. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Messner, Steven and Richard Rosenfeld. 2001. Crime and American Dream. Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth

Messner, Steven and Richard Rosenfeld. 2007. Crime and the American Dream.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Messner, Steven F., Helmut Thome, and Richard Rosenfeld. 2008. “Clarifying and

Elaborating Institutional Anomie Theory.” International Journal of Conflict and

Violence 2 (2): 163-181.

Mizruchi, Ephraim Harold. 1960. “Social Structure and Anomia in a Small City.”

American Sociological Review 25(5):645-654.

Moore, Wilbert E. 1974. Social Change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

89

Müller, Hans-Peter. 1994. “Social Differentiation and Organic Solidarity: The ‘Division

of Labor’ Revisited,” Sociological Forum 9(1):73-86.

Nederveen, Pieterse, J. 2001. Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions.

London: SAGE.

Norris, Pippa, and Ronald Ingelehart. 2002. “Islamic Culture and Democracy: Testing the

‘Clash of Civilizations’ Thesis.” 1(3-4):235-263.

O’Donnell, Guillermo A. 1973. “Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism:

Studies in South American Politics.” Politics of Modernization Series No. 9.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Organski, A. F. K. 1965. The Stages of Political Development. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf.

Orrù, M. 1987. Anomie: History and meanings. Boston: MA. Allen and Unwin.

Parsons, Talcott. 1960. “Durkheim's Contribution to the Theory of Integration of Social

Systems,” Pp. 118-53 in Essays on Sociology and , edited by Kurt H.

Wolff, New York: Harper & Row.

Parsons, Talcott. 1971. The System of Modern Societies. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

PrenticeHall.

Passas, Nikos. 1995. “Continuities in the Anomie Tradition.” Pp. 91-112. The Legacy of

Anomie Theory: Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 6, edited by Freda

Adler and William S. Laufer. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

90

Pieterse, Jan N. 1998. “My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-

Development, Reflexive Development.” Development and Change 29(2):343–

373.

Pieterse, Jan N. 2004. Globalization or Empire? London: Routledge.

Pindyck, Robert S. and Rubinfeld, Daniel L. 1998. Econometric Models and Economic

Forecasts. Boston, Mass: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Prebisch, R. 1950. The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal

Problems. NY: United Nations

Preston, P. W. 1997. Development Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell

Przeworski, Adam. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well

Being in the World, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Portes, Alejandro. 2010. : A Systematic Inquiry. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Rapley, John. 2007. Understanding Development: Theory and Practice in the Third

World. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Reagan, Ronald. 1981. “Inaugural Address.” Santa Barbara, CA: The American

Presidency Project. Retrieved August 14, 2016

(http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=43130).

Redfield, R. 1947. “The folk society.” The American Journal of Sociology 52:293-308.

Rhodes, Lewis. 1964. “Anomia, Aspiration, and Status.” Social Forces 42(4):434-440.

91

Ritzer, George. 1992. Sociological Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rodrik, Dani. 2006. “Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A

Review of the World Bank’s Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a

Decade of Reform.” Journal of Economic Literature 44(4):973–987.

Rostow, W. W. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto.

Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press.

Ryan, John. 1981. “Marital Status, Happiness, and Anomia.” Journal of Marriage and

the Family 43(3):643-649.

Schaible, Lonnie M. and Irshad Altheimer. 2016. “Social Structure, Anomie, and

National Levels of Homicide.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology 60(8):936-963.

Schmid, Josef. 1999. “Anomie in Development Context,” Pp. 173-196 in Comparative

Anomie Research: Hidden Barriers - Hidden Potential for Social Development,

edited by Peter Atteslander et al. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Scott, Marvin B., and Roy Turner. 1965. “Weber and the Anomic Theory of Deviance.”

Sociological Quarterly 6(3):233-240.

Scott, L. 2001. “International history 1945-1990.” Pp. 83-4 in the Globalization of World

Politics, edited by J. Baylis & S. Smith. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sen, Amartya K. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, William G. 1967. Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa:

Iowa State University Press.

92

Srole, L. 1956. “Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study.”

American Sociological Review 21(6):709-16.

Stallings, B. 1995. Global Change, Regional Response: The New International Context of

Development, NY: Cambridge University Press

Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1998. “More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the

Post-Washington Consensus.” Helsinki (Finland): Lecture delivered in UNU-

Wider. Retrieved July 14, 2016 (http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/annual-

lectures/en_GB/AL2/).

Sumner, Andrew 2006. “In Search of the Post-Washington (Dis)Consensus: The

‘Missing’ Content of PRSPs.” Third World Quarterly 27(8):1401-12.

Swiss Academy of Development. 1999. Comparative Anomie Research: Hidden Barriers

- Hidden Potential for Social Development, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing

Company.

Szirmai, A. 2005. The Dynamics of Socio-Economic Development: An Introduction.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thorlindsson, Thorolfur and Thoroddur Bjarnason. 1998. “Modeling Durkheim on the

Micro Level: A Study of Youth Suicidability.” American Sociological Review

63(1):94-110.

Tilly, Charles. 1977. From Mobilization to Revolution, MI: Center for Research on Social

Organization University of Michigan.

93

Tipps, Dean C. 1973. “Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of National

Societies: A Critical Perspective.” Comparative Studies in Society and History

15(2):199–226.

Tipps, D. C., 1976, “Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A

Critical Perspective”, Pp. 62-88 in Comparative Modernization: A Reader, edited

by Black, C. E. New York: Free Press

Todaro, Michael P. and Stephen Smith. 2012. Economic Development, New York:

Pearson

United Nations Development Programme. 1990. “Human Development,” New York: The

United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved August 14, 2016

(http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1990).

United Nations Development Programme. 1999. Human Development Report 1999. New

York: Oxford University Press.

United Nations Development Programme. 2000. “Millennium Development Goals,” New

York: The United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved July 14, 2016

(http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sdgoverview/mdg_goals.html)

United Nations Development Programme. 2016. “Human Development Index,” New

York: The United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved July 14, 2016

(http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi)

Vold, George B., Thomas J. Bernard and Jeffrey B. Snipes. 2002. Theoretical

Criminology. Oxford University Press.

94

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1976. “Modernization: Requiescat in Pace.” Pp. 131-5 in the

Uses of Controversy in Sociology, edited by Lewis Coser and Otto Larsen. New

York: Free Press.

Weinberg, Ian. 1969. “The Problem of the of Industrial Societies: A Critical

Look at the State of a Theory.” Comparative Studies in Society and History

11(1):1–15.

Wernick, Andrew. 2001. Aguste Comte and the Religion of Humanity, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Western, John and Andrea Lanyon. 1999. “Anomie in the Asia Pacific Region: An

Australian Study.” Pp. 73-98 in Comparative Anomie Research: Hidden Barriers

- Hidden Potential for Social Development, edited by Peter Atteslander et al.

Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Williamson, John. 1990. “What Washington Means by Reform.” Pp. 7-20 in Latin

American Policy Adjustment: How Much Has Happened? edited by John

Williamson. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

Wilson, Robert A. 1971. “Anomie in the Ghetto: A Study of Neighborhood Type, Race,

and Anomie.” The American Journal of Sociology 77:66-88.

World Bank. 1981. Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Agenda for

Action (a.k.a. The Berg Report). Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank. 1989. IBRD Articles of Agreement (as amended as effective February 16,

1989). Washington, DC: World Bank.

95

World Bank. 1993. The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future, New

York: Oxford University Press.

Worldwide Governance Indicators. 2014. “Political Stability and Absence of

Violence/Terrorism.” New York: the World Bank. Retrieved August 20, 2016

(http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#doc)

World Values Survey. 2006. “Introduction to the World Values Survey.” Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan. Retrieved July 14, 2016

(http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org)

Zhao, Ruohui and Liqun Cao. 2010. “Social Change and Anomie: A Cross-National

Study.” Social Forces 88(3):1209-29.

96

Appendix A

The Effect of Cultural Background on Anomie

As it was described in 3.3.2 section, countries of the sample were grouped based on four criteria and one of them was cultural background. A one-way between groups

ANOVA was performed to examine the impact of cultural backgrounds of countries on anomie. All samples were divided into six groups according to their cultures including

Western, Islamic, Latin, Orthodox, Asian (including Hindu, Buddhist, Sinic, and

Japanese), and African. The test for normality, examining standardized skewness and

Kurtosis, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s test showed the data were statistically normal.

However, the homogeneity of variance was not significant, Levene’s F(5, 94) = 3.953, p

= 0.003, indicating that this assumption underlying the application of ANOVA was not

Table A.1 Means and Standard Deviations of Anomie

Culture N Mean SD

Western 13 1.682 .338 Islamic 27 3.753 .885 Latin 17 2.715 .510 Orthodox 8 2.567 .336 Asian 12 2.457 .812 African 23 3.058 .965 Total 100 2.897 .994

97

Table A.2 Games-Howel Post hoc Results of Anomie by Cultural Background

Mean Differences ( X i − X k )

Group Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6

1. Western 1.62 - -2.071*** -1.033*** -.885*** -.775 -1.376*** 2. Islamic 3.753 2.071*** - 1.038*** 1.186*** 1.296** -.695 3. Latin 2.715 1.033* -1.038*** - .148 -.258 -.343 4. Orthodox 2.567 .885*** -1.186*** -.148 - .110 -.491 5. Asian 2.457 .775 -1.296** -.258 -.110 - -.600 6. African 3.058 1.358*** -.695 .343 .491 .600 - *= p<.05; **= p<.01;***= p<.001 met, and as a result, I have to check Welch’s adjusted F. Based on the result of the Welch statistic, there is a statistically significant effect of cultural background on anomie at the p

< .001 level, F(5, 37.166) = 26.198. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was

.443. According to Cohen’s (1988), this amount is a very large effect size meaning 44.3

% of the variance in anomie was caused by cultural background. The mean and standard deviation of each group are presented in Table A.1. Based on the result, the maximum anomie is related to the Islamic culture (Mean = 3.753) and the minimum anomie is associated with Western Culture (Mean = 1.682).

Post-hoc comparisons using Games-Howel procedures were used to determine which pairs of the six group means differed. Games-Howel’s test suggests that the mean of anomie for Western culture is significantly different from all other cultures except

Asian. The mean of anomie for Islamic culture is significantly different from all other cultures except African. The mean of anomie for Latin culture is significantly different from those of Western and Islamic. The mean of anomie for Orthodox culture is also significantly different from Islamic. The mean of anomie for Asian culture is significantly different from the Islamic. And finally, the mean of anomie for African

98 culture is significantly different only from that of Western. The results of Games-

Howel’s test is presented in Table A.2.

The result is consistent with other theories or studies (Norris and Ingelehart 2002;

Gurr et al 2005) suggesting Islamic culture is more resistant to some values of modernity so experiences a higher level of anomie. However, as it was mentioned before, quantifying of culture is problematic, and this result may only suggest a preliminary clue for further studies with more focus on each country.

99

Appendix B

Maps

100

Map B.1 Level of Anomie of Sample Countries in the of B.1 Level Map

101

Map B.1 Level of Development of B.1 Countries in the of Level Map Sample

102