How the coronavirus crisis affects citizen trust in institutions and in unknown others: Evidence from ‘the Swedish experiment’

We study how Swedish citizens updated their institutional and interpersonal trust as the corona crisis evolved from an initial phase to an acute phase in the spring of 2020. The study is based on a large web-survey panel with adult Swedes (n = 11,406) in which the same individuals were asked the same set of questions at two different time points during the coronavirus pandemic (t₀ and t₁). The sample was self-selected but diverse (a smaller subsample, n = 1,464, was pre-stratified to be representative of the Swedish population on key demographics). We find support for the view that the corona crisis led to higher levels of institutional and interpersonal trust. Moreover, reactions were largely homogeneous across those groups that could potentially relate distantly to government authorities.     

Who Are We? Who Are They? The Real Facts of a Globalized Chimerica

China's remarkable progress has shown that modernity does not only belong to the West. At the same time, China's modernization has been largely fueled by direct investment of foreign firms which also dominate key technologies and critical positions in the global supply chain. In this section we get the real facts on the interpenetration of China and the global economy. A leading Chinese entrepreneur and thinker puts modernization with Chinese characteristics in historical perspective. One of China's leading dissidents assesses the arrest of Ai Weiwei.     

ORGANIZATIONAL OFFENDING AND NEOCLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY: CHALLENGING THE REACH OF A GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME*

This article examines and critiques Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime, with particular respect to its applicability to organizational offending. We question their views that the theory is adequately general and that typologies of crime are therefore unnecessary for criminological theory. Gottfredson and Hirschi have employed the case of white-collar crime to support their arguments, but they have con strained the test of their theory by focusing on the white-collar offenses that most resemble conventional crime. When organizational offending is included in white-collar crime, empirical and theoretical limitations of their project emerge. These limitations include the matters of defining and counting the phenomena of interest, the nature of the interest that commonly underlies them, and the role of opportunity in them. A satisfactory theory of organizational offending requires an adequate account of all these matters and will look substantially different from Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of crime.