Abstract Tuttle, James Arthur
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT TUTTLE, JAMES ARTHUR. Explaining Longitudinal and Cross-National Variation in Homicide: Towards a Theory of Institutional Legitimacy. (Under the direction of Patricia L. McCall and Steve McDonald). Macro-criminological theory has lagged behind its micro-level counterpart, leaving criminologists ill-prepared to explain variation in crime rates across nations and over time. Despite a major step forward in ‘institutional anomie theory,’ significant questions remain about its central premise, empirical falsifiability and theoretical scope. To address limitations in macro-criminology theory, the current study builds on LaFree’s (1998) Losing Legitimacy hypothesis, which stresses institutional control of crime. To extend this framework, the causal mechanisms connecting institutional legitimacy and reductions in violent crime are outlined, including (1) a reduction in conflict, (2) peaceful resolution of conflict and (3) the strengthening of existing social control mechanisms. Two cross-national studies assessing the empirical validity of this ‘institutional legitimacy theory’ (in Chapters 3 and 4) provide support for its tenets, as homicide rates are inversely associated with political, economic, familial and religious institutional legitimacy. Chapter 5 addresses declining rates of homicide across Western democracies, noting that declines in political legitimacy are associated with increasingly repressive forms of social control, including increasing rates of incarceration. Overall, there is evidence that institutional legitimacy assists in reducing rates of homicide. However, waning political legitimacy may also contribute to increasingly repressive forms of social control imposed by the state, partially counter-balancing the criminogenic impact of waning political legitimacy. Further research is needed to clarify the theoretical mechanisms outlined in this study. © Copyright 2018 by James Arthur Tuttle All Rights Reserved Explaining Longitudinal and Cross-National Variation in Homicide: Towards a Theory of Institutional Legitimacy by James Arthur Tuttle A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Sociology Raleigh, North Carolina 2018 APPROVED BY: _______________________________ _______________________________ Patricia L. McCall Steve McDonald Committee Co-Chair Committee Co-Chair _______________________________ _______________________________ Charles R. Tittle Virginia M. Aldigé ii DEDICATION To Jen, for her suffering. iii BIOGRAPHY James Tuttle was raised in rural Southeast Nebraska, in and near the village of Lewiston. He attended McPherson College, graduating summa cum laude with a degree in psychology and sociology. After finishing his bachelor’s degree, James went on to study at North Carolina State University, earning his master’s degree in sociology in 2013. His current research interests include the development of macro-criminological theory, explaining cross-national variation in violent crime and issues of social control. James will be joining the faculty at the University of Saint Francis in the Fall of 2018. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who made this dissertation possible. My wife Jen has been supportive throughout my college career. She has encouraged me when I had doubts, been flexible in her career plans to support my own and accompanied me on several trips to less- than-exciting professional conferences. She sacrificed to accommodate my initial move to complete my graduate education and our upcoming relocation for my new position. My mother and father have also been very supportive, despite my move across the country and calling home (too) infrequently. Patty McCall has been instrumental in my completion of this dissertation. Even through personal tragedy and retirement, Patty was always available to discuss anything, from informal expectations of the profession to estimating advanced statistical models. I greatly appreciate all the time and effort she has devoted to guiding me in my research, job search and overall professional development. It is an understatement to say she went “above and beyond” her role as advisor and mentor. It is hard to imagine my education at NC State without her. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Steve McDonald, Charles Tittle and Virginia Aldigé. Not only have all my committee members provided valuable feedback on the dissertation but have also written letters of recommendations on my behalf for my multi-year job search. I benefited from Dr. McDonald’s methodological acumen, as he assisted me in navigating the unique challenges of imputing and analyzing longitudinal data. I appreciate Dr. Tittle’s insights on theoretical issues on this project, pushing me to carefully consider the accuracy of theoretical mechanisms I initially proposed. Dr. Aldigé also shaped this project considerably, highlighting logical inconsistencies in my v work and cautioning about the quality of cross-national data. I appreciate the time and effort each member of my committee has devoted to this dissertation and in the assistance in my professional development and recent job search. Thank you! vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 1.1 Prologue: The Necessity of Macro-Criminological Theory .............................................1 1.2 Focusing on “The Big Picture” ........................................................................................5 1.3 Institutional Anomie Theory: Promise and Limitations ...................................................8 1.4 Towards a Theory of Institutional Legitimacy ...............................................................12 CHAPTER 2. TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED THEORY OF INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY .........................................................................................................................15 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................15 2.2 LaFree’s (1998) Losing Legitimacy ...............................................................................16 2.3 Clarification of Theoretical Mechanisms .......................................................................18 Mechanism #1: Institutional Legitimacy and a Reduction of Conflict ............................20 Material Conflict ...........................................................................................................20 Status Conflict................................................................................................................21 Moral Conflict ...............................................................................................................23 Mechanism #2: Conflict Resolution .................................................................................25 Mechanism #3: Strengthening Community Control Mechanisms ...................................26 2.4 Crises in Institutional Legitimacy ..................................................................................29 Political Legitimacy and State Repression .......................................................................30 The Efficacy of State Repression .....................................................................................33 2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................37 CHAPTER 3. A CROSS-NATIONAL TEST OF INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY THEORY ACROSS 108 NATIONS, CIRCA 2012 ................................................................39 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................39 3.2 Literature Review ...........................................................................................................41 Murder in the Shadows: The Shadow Economy ..............................................................43 3.3 Hypothesis ......................................................................................................................44 3.4 Data and Methods ...........................................................................................................45 Dependent Variable ..........................................................................................................46 vii Independent Variables ......................................................................................................46 Control Variables..............................................................................................................49 Preliminary Analysis ........................................................................................................50 3.5 Results ............................................................................................................................51 Supplemental Analyses ....................................................................................................53 3.6 Discussion and Conclusions ...........................................................................................54