Table of Contents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: 8-Oct-2009 I, Ozkan Gok , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Doctor of Philosophy in Criminal Justice It is entitled: Structural Disadvantage, Terrorism, and Non-terrorist Violent Crime in Turkey Student Signature: Ozkan Gok This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: Pamela Wilcox, PhD Pamela Wilcox, PhD James Frank, PhD James Frank, PhD John Wright, PhD John Wright, PhD Melissa M. Moon, PhD Melissa M. Moon, PhD 11/17/2009 173 Structural Disadvantage, Terrorism, and Non-Terrorist Violent Crime in Turkey A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the department of Criminal Justice of the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services by Ozkan Gok M.S., Kirikkale University- Turkey 2002 Dissertation Committee: Pamela Wilcox, Ph.D. (Chair) James Frank, Ph.D. John Wright, Ph.D. Melissa Moon, Ph.D. ABSTRACT This study examines the role of structural disadvantage in the non-terrorist violent and terrorism-related crimes. The objectives of the current research are to find answers to the questions regarding why and how crime rates vary across the provinces. The present study uses macro-level analyses to examine relationships between structural disadvantage variables and crime. The current study will use provinces of Turkey as units of analysis, and will look at the effects of different structural characteristics of provinces in connection with violent and terrorism-related crime rates. Unemployment, residential instability, poverty, economic inequality, family disruption, and low education are employed as structural disadvantage factors and their correlations with crimes are examined. Additionally, percent youth, population density, and region (only in terrorism-related crimes) are used as control variables. In the current research, total violent, homicide, aggravated assault, rape, robbery, and terrorism-related crimes in 81 provinces of Turkey are examined for a three year period ranging from 2006 to 2008. Crime data is obtained from Turkish National Police. Measures of structural disadvantage data are obtained from Turkish Statistical Institute, Census, Ministry of National Education, and Ministry of Health. Multivariate OLS and negative binomial regression results for non-terrorist violent crimes in general reveal statistically significant correlations between three structural disadvantage variables and rates of total violence, homicide, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery. Study results indicate that unemployment and family disruption have a significant positive impact on all types of non-terrorist violent crime rates. Lastly, low education is other structural disadvantage variable that is significantly ii and positively associated with total violent, homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery crime rates in present study. Zero inflated negative binomial analyses of terrorism-related crimes in Turkey show a number of important findings. Results indicate that among the structural disadvantage variables, poverty and residential instability have significant positive effects on terrorism-related crimes. This study reveals important nuances to overall general findings, with completely different indicators of disadvantage predicting non-terrorist versus terrorist violence. There are important differences between the nature of terrorism versus non-terrorist violence that might account for the differences in significance of specific indicators of disadvantage across these two categories. Non-terrorist and terrorism-related violent crimes have several differences in terms of motivation, opportunity structure, methods, and ideology. Additionally, non-terrorist violence crimes are usually preceded by social interaction. Many of these violent crime victims know their assailants and are involved in a dispute of some sort with their assailants. As such, from a macro viewpoint, they are most likely to be triggered by structural conditions that provide or indicate “relational stressors.” On the other hand, in terrorism-related crimes, generally there is no social interaction between offender(s) and victim(s), so relational stress is not an issue. In contrast, political ideology is a typical motivation. Thus, dimensions of disadvantage that tap into social change and social injustice are logically more likely to be related to terrorist violence. iii iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I appreciate my dissertation committee members’ support during the dissertation process. Completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without their support. First, I thank Dr. Pamela Wilcox, my dissertation committee chair, for her intellect and energy. She continually stimulated my analytical thinking and greatly assisted me with scientific writing. Her theoretical and statistical insights are admirable. I also appreciate her patience and timely responses to my questions during that process. Without her guidance and leadership, this dissertation would not have been finished. I also wish to thank to the other dissertation committee members. Doctor John Wright and Doctor James Frank did a lot for me to defend my dissertation with their endless support and their valuable suggestions. Doctor Melissa Moon also encouraged me during that process. I believe in the common saying that “behind every successful man, there is a woman”. Finally, I owe special thanks to my wife for encouraging me and for her patience, love, understanding, and support throughout my pursuit of a doctoral degree. She supported me at every stage of my studies. Without her encouragement, I could not finish this dissertation. v TABLE OF CONTEXT LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ ix LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 2 CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS ............................................................ 5 ANOMIE AND INSTITUTIONAL ANOMIE THEORY ......................................................... 5 MERTON’S ANOMIE THEORY.................................................................................................... 5 INSTITUTIONAL ANOMIE THEORY ........................................................................................... 7 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ............................................................................................................ 10 MACRO-LEVEL GENERAL STRAIN THEORY .................................................................. 12 MERTON’S STRAIN THEORY ................................................................................................... 12 AGNEW’S GENERAL STRAIN THEORY .................................................................................... 14 MACRO LEVEL GENERAL STRAIN THEORY .......................................................................... 17 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................. 18 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY .............................................................................. 20 SYSTEMIC MODEL OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY ................................................ 21 EMPIRICAL STUDIES ABOUT SYSTEMIC MODEL ................................................................... 23 COLLECTIVE EFFICACY MODEL OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY ......................... 27 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................. 29 CONFLICT THEORY ................................................................................................................ 30 ORIGINS OF MODERN-DAY CONFLICT THEORY .................................................................... 31 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................. 33 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 35 CHAPTER THREE: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................ 37 THE EFFECTS OF INEQUALITY .......................................................................................... 60 POSITIVE EFFECTS OF INEQUALITY ON VIOLENCE ............................................................... 61 NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF INEQUALITY ON VIOLENCE ............................................................. 63 NULL EFFECTS OF INEQUALITY ON VIOLENCE ..................................................................... 63 POVERTY ................................................................................................................................... 65 POSITIVE EFFECTS OF POVERTY ON VIOLENCE .................................................................... 66 NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF POVERTY ON VIOLENCE .................................................................. 67 NULL EFFECTS OF POVERTY ON VIOLENCE .......................................................................... 68 UNEMPLOYMENT ...................................................................................................................