Routine activities and social control in the aftermath of a natural catastrophe

The first two being from the University of Miami, the latter two from the University of Florida.     

Creating change in the legal system

Focuses on the potential contributions that community psychology models can make to theory, research, and practice in the area of psychology and law. The author, in his presidential address to the American Psychology-Law Society, looks specifically at the criminal and juvenile justice systems and the impact that these systems, and law and policy more broadly, have on individuals. He argues that community psychology perspectives would help shift the focus away from the disproportionate and often incorrect emphasis that our system of justice places on individual deficit models and individual level interventions, and concludes that a community psychology approach would also reinforce efforts to promote prevention programs that in the long term might prove more effective in dealing with the problem of crime in our society.This article is a revised version of the American Psychology-Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association) Presidential Address, read at the American Psychological Association Convention, Los Angeles, August, 1994. I want to thank Ray Corrado, Steve Hart, John Monahan, Jim Ogloff, Julian Rappaport, Dick Reppucci, Kathy Roesch, and Ed Seidman for their comments and feedback on earlier versions of this paper.Simon Fraser University.     

National memory: The duty to remember,the need to forget

Ronald Koven has served as a correspondent in France for twenty-four of the past thirty-two years, successively as the de Gaulle watcher of the International Herald Tribuneand as the Paris correspondent of the Washington Post(for which he was the diplomatic editor and the foreign editor) and the Boston Globe.He concentrates on surveying and coordinating aid for independent news media in Eastern Europe.     

From race to citizenship: The indigenization debate in post-socialist Tanzania

Neoliberal economic reforms in post-socialist Tanzania heightened racial as well as anti-foreign hostilities, while liberal political reforms made possible the expression of these antagonisms in electoral politics. Newly formed opposition parties mobilized popular support by advocating anti-Asian indigenization of minority rights. This prompted the ruling party, which had initially denounced advocates of indigenization as racist, to alter its position. In doing so, ruling party leaders redefined the meaning of indigenization, shifting the focus of the debate away from racial issues and Asian control of the economy toward issues of free trade, foreign investment, and foreign economic domination. By implementing indigenization measures targeting non-citizens and featuring anti-liberal economic policies, including tariff barriers, local content laws, and restrictions on property ownership, the government faced the danger of losing international support from foreign donors and international financial institutions. The trajectory of the indigenization debate reveals the role of electoral competition and party formation in shaping race relations and national identity in post-socialist Tanzania. It suggests the need for event-centered studies of the way in which political identities are constructed in processes of conflict within the institutional arenas created by liberal political reforms. Ronald Aminzade is professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. His publications concerning the social and political consequences of capitalist development includeBallots and Barricade: Class Formation and Republican Politics in France, 1830–1871 (Princeton University Press, 1993) andClass, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism: A Study of Mid-Nineteenth Century Toulouse, France (State University of New York Press, 1981). He is also co-editor ofSilence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2001) andThe Social Worlds of Higher Education (Pine Forge Press, 1999). For making this research possible I would like to thank the University of Minnesota and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, which provided support through National Science Foundation Grant #SBR-9601236. I am grateful to James Brennan, Susan Geiger, Erik Larson, Mary Jo Maynes, Marjorie Mbilinyi, Jamie Monson, Richa Nagar, Anne Pitcher, Eric Sheppard, Thomas Spear, Charles Tilly, Eric Weitz, Erik Olin Wright, and several anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft.     

Using network sampling in crime victimization surveys

Since crime victimizations are statistically rare events, surveys to estimate rates of victimization are difficult and expensive. In this paper, we examine the advantages of network sampling over traditional methods for conducting crime victimization surveys. Network sampling links population households in specified ways, for reporting purposes, in order to increase the probabilities of locating households with particular characteristics. We conducted a reverse record check field experiment to test whether a telephone survey using network sampling is feasible to collect crime victimization data. Three types of crimes-burglary, robbery, and assault-were tested along with two types of networks-relatives and co-workers/close friends. This paper examines the extent to which victims report their victimization experiences in a general crime and victimization interview and the extent to which a randomly selected relative or close friend will report the same victimization incident in an identical interview. A number of multiplicity counting rules are compared in terms of reporting errors and a mean square error analysis.