Collective Efficacy and Community Crime Rates: a Cross-National Test
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Collective Efficacy and Community Crime Rates: A Cross - National Test of Rival Models A Dissertation S ubmitted to the Graduate School of the U niversity of Cincinnati In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.) In the School of Criminal Justice of the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services 2016 by Cecilia Chouhy B.A., Universidad de la República, 2006 M.A., Universidad de la República, 2013 Dissertation Committee: Francis T. Cullen, Ph.D. (Chair) Michael L. Benson, Ph. D. Pamela Wilcox, Ph.D. Cheryl Lero Jonson, Ph.D. i ABSTRACT The burgeoning number of community - level studies of crime has helped to highlight the importance of contextual effects when understanding differences in crime across communities. Inspired by the Chicago School of social disorganization, communities and crime scholars have focused on disentangling the community characteristics that make them more or less able to control crime. In this context, collective efficacy theory — first articulated in 1997 by Robert Samps on, Stephen Raudenbush, and Felton Earls — has emerged as the most prominent community - level explanation of differential crime rates across geographical units. However, research on the construct of collective efficacy has two main limitations. First, test s of this perspective rarely include measures of rival community - level explanations of crime, particularly perspectives that incorporate cultural features as key elements of their formulations. Thus, the level of legal cynicism (Kirk & Papachristos, 2011) and the endorsement of violence as a way to solve problems within the community (Anderson, 1999; Stewart & Simons, 2010) have been shown to explain variations in crime across communities. Little is known, however, about whether these factors retain their explanatory power in models that also consider collective efficacy or whether collective efficacy remains associated with crime when these cultural conditions are taken into consideration. Second, tests of collective efficacy theory have been conducted primarily on data drawn from communities located in the United States and other advanced Western nations. Accordingly, it is unclear whether collective efficacy theory — as well as other macro - level perspectives — are general theories or whether their explana tory power is specific to the United States and similar nations, the structure of their communities, and the particularity of their crime problem (Sampson, 2006). i In this context, using data from the Latin American Population Survey (LAPOP) from 2012 and 2 014 collected in 472 communities in five South American countries, this dissertation aims to make a contribution by addressing these two gaps in the communities and crime literature. Specifically, the research strategy involves providing a test of collect ive efficacy theory and competing community - level theories of crime in five South American Nations With some caveats, the results revealed that collective efficacy theory is generalizable to the South American context. In this sample, collective efficacy operated as a protective factor against crime across these communities. Further, alternative theories of crime — legal cynicism and subculture of violence — were shown to provide important insights into the sources of varying victimization rates across commun ities. This study advances the area of communities and crime in three ways. First, it reveals the capacity of collective efficacy theory to account for variations in victimization rates in South America — that is, beyond the context of Western industrializ ed nations. Second, it demonstrates the value of incorporating cultural elements into the study of communities and crime. In this regard, the findings suggest that cultural and control perspectives can be successfully integrated into a more comprehensive understanding of crime. Third, by setting forth an alternative operationalization of collective efficacy, it helps to illuminate the complex relationship between structural characteristics, the different dimensions of collective efficacy, and victimizati on rates. ii iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The culmination of this dissertation represents a turning point in my academic career. I am indebted to many people who made this accomplishment possible. First, I am extremely grateful to Dr. Francis Cullen, my academic mentor and one of my greatest supp orters. I was fortunate enough to start working with him at the beginning of my doctoral studies and to benefit early from endless discussions about crucial issues such as criminological theory, academic scholarship, world politics, and, more importantly, soccer. His mentorship has been invaluable and inspirational in too many ways. His insights into the field go beyond a perfunctory accumulation of scholarly knowledge. He has a vision for the field and always encouraged me to move theories forward and look at the bigger picture. In this quest, he has stimulated my critical thinking and opened innumerable opportunities for research and collaboration. I would consider myself happy to be able to become half as good a mentor to my students as he has been to his. Second, I want to thank the members of mi dissertation committee. The help and support I received from Dr. Benson and Dr. Jonson not only made my dissertation more solid and complete but also gave me the confidence I needed to move forward and be able to finish it. I also appreciate their patience and willingness to cooperate with my tight schedule during the summer without complaining. I am especially indebted to Dr. Wilcox for her endless support and availability to discuss the specifics of my methodological strategy and the implications of each of the estimation decisions I made. Also, it was in her class that I was introduced to the communities and crime area. Her passion and engagement to high quality research in the area inspired me to embark in this line of research for my dissertation and — hopefully — beyond it. I would also like to thank all the faculty and staff in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. Being surrounded by so many great scholars and havin g the iv opportunity to learn from them in and out of the classroom has enriched me greatly. I want to express my appreciation to the people in the Corrections Institute for the opportunities they gave me and their support during my last years in the program . I am also appreciative of my fellow students for the engaging class discussions and the inspirational debates during breaks and other informal gatherings. It would have not been the same without you. I am indebted also to my home University, the Unive rsidad de la República, for the solid educational background and the support it provided me that made it possible for me to succeed as a doctoral student. I would also like to thank the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) and its major supporter s (the United States Agency for International Development, the Inter - American Development Bank, and Vanderbilt University) for making available the data used in this dissertation. Finally, I want to acknowledge the emotional support I received from my fami ly and friends, without whom I would not have been able to complete this dissertation. I especially want to thank my parents (Gloria and Lorenzo) and my two brothers (Gabriel and Pablo). They not only provided me support and encouragement during my docto ral years, but also were responsible for inspiring my curiosity for the world in general and to cement my critical thinking through endless living room discussions about political and social events. Last but not least, I want to thank my husband, Martín a nd my son Oli ver . There are no words to express my appreciation and love to you. It may have been easier without Oli ver , but infinitely less rewarding. Martín’s willingness to leave everything behind to embark in this journey with me is invaluable. Thi s dissertation is also his making. It is the product of too many ruined summers and late dinners filled with discussions about criminology and beyond. Above all, he made having a four - month old and a finished dissertation two compatible events. He is a great partner and an even better father. ¡Gracias ! v TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY THEORY: FROM SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION TO THE SYSTEMIC MODEL .............................. 1 SHAW AND MCKAY’S SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY ................................ ..... 4 REFORMULATING SOCIAL DISORGANIZATON THEORY: KORNHAUSER’ S CRITQUE ................................ ................................ .............................. 13 Context ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 14 Building on Shaw and McKay ................................ ................................ ............................ 25 Co nclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 31 THE SYSTEMIC MODEL OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATON ................................ ............. 31 The Core Components of the Systemic Model ................................ ................................ .... 32 Testing the Systemic Model: Specifying the Relationship Between Ties and Crime ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 37 CONCLUSION ................................ ...............................