PERSONAL CAPITAL AND SOCIAL CONTROL: THE DETERRENCE IMPLICATIONS OF A THEORY OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CRIMINAL OFFENDING*

A large and growing literature links stable individual differences established early in life to deviant behavior through the life course. This literature challenges basic premises of modern sociological and economic theories of deviance that emphasize explanatory factors that are more proximate in time and external to the individual. In this paper we present and test a theory designed to link rational choice and social control theories with two leading examples of theories that emphasize stable individual differences (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Based on appeals to the economic theory of investment, we argue that individuals who are more present oriented and self-centered invest less in social bonds and therefore are less deterred from committing crime by the possibility of damage to such bonds. Thus, our theory, which builds from key constructs of the Gottfredson-Hir-schi and Wilson-Herrnstein theories, departs from those theories with the contention that social control does matter.     

GUN CONTROL AND POLITICAL POWER

Most of the debate over gun control policy has slighted the possible relationship between such policies and the distribution of political power. Five political functions of firearms control laws are discussed and examples are provided.     

DOES DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL MEAN DROPPING INTO DELINQUENCY?*

Approximately one third of U.S. high‐school freshmen do not earn their high‐school diploma on time. For African‐American and Hispanic students, this figure nearly reaches one half. The long‐term economic consequences of dropping out of school for both the student and the larger community have been well documented. It has also been argued that school dropouts put themselves at a higher risk for delinquent and criminal behavior when they leave school. Although it seems plausible that dropping out might increase the potential for delinquent conduct, another view states that dropping out is simply the final event in a long, gradual process of disenchantment and disengagement from school. Dropouts show evidence of school failure and developmental problems years in advance. It has been argued, therefore, that the actual event of finally leaving school has no causal effect on criminal or delinquent behavior because it has been so long in coming. In this article, we examine the effect of leaving school early, and the reason for dropping out, on delinquent behavior with the use of panel data models from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 Cohort (NLSY97). Through an appeal to identity theory, we hypothesize that the effect of dropping out is not uniform but varies by the reason for leaving school, gender, and time. This conjecture receives only partial empirical support. Implications for future work in the area are discussed.     

ON THE USE OF PANEL RESEARCH DESIGNS AND RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS TO INVESTIGATE STATIC AND DYNAMIC THEORIES OF CRIMINAL OFFENDING

There is a long-standing debate in criminology about the relative impact of static versus dynamic factors on criminal behavior. Researchers interested in estimating the impact of dynamic factors like prior offending or association with delinquent peers on criminal offending must control for static factors like intelligence, family background, or self-control, which could plausibly be correlated with criminal offending and the dynamic factor itself. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, it is not possible to observe all of these static factors. Statisticians and econometricians have shown that it is possible to identify the collective effect of static factors even though they cannot be observed. To achieve this objective, however, it is necessary to account for stable, unobserved individual characteristics through the use of "fixed-effect" or "random-effect" estimation. Criminologists often use random-effect estimators in these situations. We describe some of the assumptions that are necessary to develop valid inferences when time-varying covariates are used. Then, we use simulation evidence and an empirical application to show that bias can result when they are violated.     

UNEMPLOYMENT,IMPRISONMENT, AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES OF ACCUMULATION: HISTORICAL CONTINGENCY IN THE RUSCHE-KIRCHHEIMER HYPOTHESIS*

This study explores the relationship between punishment and social structure by combining the work of Rusche and Kirchheimer with current theorizing regarding social structures of accumulation (SSAs). Specifically, we theorize that the unemployment-imprisonment (U-I) relationship is historically contingent. In particular, we argue that qualitative changes in the configuration of labor markets, state strategies for managing surplus populations, and international relations across SSAs and stages within them result in changes in the magnitude and direction of the U-I relationship. In other words, changes in the qualitative relations among capital, labor, and the state are reflected in quantitative changes in the relationship between rates of unemployment and imprisonment. We hypothesize that three stages of the Fordist SSA (exploration, 1933–1947; consolidation, 1948–1966; decay, 1967–1979) will manifest varying levels of a positive and significant U-I relationship, while the first stage of the new globalized, cyber-technology SSA (1980–1992) will be characterized by a negative U-I relationship due to the co-emergence of a (semi)permanent underclass and an intensification of punitiveness. We test this model using a structurally periodized analysis to determine if the relationship between rates of unemployment and new court admissions to prison (net of rates of violent crime) differs across the four periods studied. Our analysis of the U-I relationship within each SSA phase, and time-varying parameter tests of the periodization of twentieth-century capitalist development, indicate that the U-I relationship is indeed historically contingent and warrants further structurally periodized analysis.     

MULTIPLE ROUTES TO DELINQUENCY? A TEST OF DEVELOPMENTAL AND GENERAL THEORIES OF CRIME

General and developmental theories take very different approaches to the study of crime. General theories, like Gottfredson and Hirschi's recent theory of self-control, assume that crime can be explained with reference to a single or very limited set of explanatory factors. In addition, some general theories, like Gottfredson and Hirschi's, adopt a very static approach to causality. They presume that prior offending has no causal effect on current offending once time-stable criminal propensity is controlled, and they assume that the relationship between changes in life events and changes in offending are spurious. Recent developmental theories, like those proposed by Moffitt and Patterson, stand in stark contrast to Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory. These developmental theories are far more complex because they relax the assumption of general causality and adopt a more dynamic position about the relationship between changes in life circumstances and changes in crime. In this article we examine whether the added complexity of a developmental theory of crime is preferable to the more parsimonious general/static theory of Gottfredson and Hirschi. We find that the evidence is not faithful to either a pure static/general model or a pure developmental model of crime. Our findings appeal to a theoretical middle ground that assumes that pathways to crime are more similar than different and that allows for a causal effect of past offending and life experiences on future criminality. When viewed in the context of previous studies that have assessed offending over the life course, our results suggest that further theoretical development can profit from studying issues of measurement and sample composition.