DOES CRIME JUST MOVE AROUND THE CORNER? A CONTROLLED STUDY OF SPATIAL DISPLACEMENT AND DIFFUSION OF CRIME CONTROL BENEFITS*

Recent studies point to the potential theoretical and practical benefits of focusing police resources on crime hot spots. However, many scholars have noted that such approaches risk displacing crime or disorder to other places where programs are not in place. Although much attention has been paid to the idea of displacement, methodological problems associated with measuring it have often been overlooked. We try to fill these gaps in measurement and understanding of displacement and the related phenomenon of diffusion of crime control benefits. Our main focus is on immediate spatial displacement or diffusion of crime to areas near the targeted sites of an intervention. Do focused crime prevention efforts at places simply result in a movement of offenders to areas nearby targeted sites—“do they simply move crime around the corner”? Or, conversely, will a crime prevention effort focusing on specific places lead to improvement in areas nearby—what has come to be termed a diffusion of crime control benefits? Our data are drawn from a controlled study of displacement and diffusion in Jersey City, New Jersey. Two sites with substantial street‐level crime and disorder were targeted and carefully monitored during an experimental period. Two neighboring areas were selected as “catchment areas” from which to assess immediate spatial displacement or diffusion. Intensive police interventions were applied to each target site but not to the catchment areas. More than 6,000 20‐minute social observations were conducted in the target and catchment areas. They were supplemented by interviews and ethnographic field observations. Our findings indicate that, at least for crime markets involving drugs and prostitution, crime does not simply move around the corner. Indeed, this study supports the position that the most likely outcome of such focused crime prevention efforts is a diffusion of crime control benefits to nearby areas.     

合理开发利用贵州少数民族传统体育推动贵州旅游业的发展

贵州少数民族传统体育融音乐、舞蹈、体育为一体,是民族文化的表现形式,是重要的民族文化旅游资源。从旅游业的角度,本文从少数民族体育具有的开发利用价值、开发利用的必要性,论述了贵州少数民族传统体育的开发利用对贵州旅游业发展的积极推动作用,并分析了对其开发利用必须坚持的原则和措施。     

情境犯罪预防的原理与实践

情境预防的理论根基包括三个方面 :理性选择理论、日常活动理论、环境犯罪学理论。情境预防的基本措施包括五个方面 :提高犯罪难度、提高犯罪风险、降低犯罪回报、减少犯罪刺激、排除犯罪借口。借鉴这一理论与实践措施 ,对我国犯罪预防有积极的意义     

主体建构理论及其一般机制——基于“提供性服务歌厅”老板言及“小姐”时自我呈现的社区考察

基于对提供性服务歌厅的相处式社区考察,文章从主体和情境视角分析了歌厅老板对"小姐"的建构与言说及其不一致的现象,通过解读老板在言及他人时进行信息控制的感性意识和理性选择,阐述了主体建构的理论要点和一般机制:(1)主体建构是内化了社会建构的再建构;(2)当社会建构呈贬抑时,主体建构对内呈顺向弱化或逆向否定建构,对外呈顺向强化建构;(3)当社会建构呈褒扬时,主体建构对内呈顺向强化建构,对外呈顺向弱化或逆向否定建构;(4)主体建构与言说的不一致,是主体在情境中的自我呈现策略。     

国际制度设计视角下的澜湄合作

为什么在湄公河流域已经存在数十个国际合作机制的情况下,还要建立澜湄合作(LMC)这一新型次区域合作机制?既有研究大多强调湄公河流域大国国际制度主导权竞争的宏观背景因素,而较少关注澜湄合作机制的新制度特征及其形成原因,即澜湄新型次区域合作机制究竟"新在何处"。与大湄公河次区域经济合作机制(GMS)等既有国际机制相比,澜湄合作机制具有两大新的制度特征:一是议题范围更加广泛,除了传统的区域经济合作议题外,还增加了区域安全合作以及水资源合作等新议题;二是集中程度更高,与之前合作机制主要由"职能部门引领"以及"借用"亚洲开发银行作为国际秘书处的做法不同,澜湄合作机制采取了"领导人引领、各部门参与"的机制运行模式,并逐步建立独立的国际秘书处。通过运用国际制度理性设计的理论模型,本文考察了在湄公河流域国际合作中上游国家与下游国家之间所面临的日益严峻的分配问题和执行问题,并以此解释了澜湄合作新制度特征的形成原因。     

接受美学立体思维与思想政治教育

姚斯接受美学是以读者为中心的文学理论,"期待视野"是其核心概念。借鉴姚斯接受美学的立体思维方法对思想政治教育接受进行分析,思想政治教育接受呈现整体性、有机性、动态性的特征。优化思想政治教育接受应尊重接受主体的"期待视野",提高传导者的思想政治教育水平,重视接受介体的良性合力共建,强化对接受客体的把关。     

重新审视韦伯的官僚制理论

韦伯对官僚制的研究乃是基于其对现代社会与政治的全面反思.官僚制是指一种无所不在的现代科层现象,它以自身的“理性”特征区别于其他的支配类型,影响着人们的日常生活以及精神状态.同时,韦伯将正当支配类型分为三种并非武断,而是有其理论关切的.通过对官僚制支配与超凡魅力型支配进行对比考察,韦伯从“日常/非日常”的视角揭示了它们所处理的事务在性质上的差异,由此说明了官僚制特有的局限性以及卡里斯玛型权威的必要性.此外,韦伯式的官僚制研究并不是为了生产专业知识,而是为了获得见识,并且帮助人们更好地对事物作出价值判断.     

加快建立扩大消费需求的长效机制

党的十八大报告指出要牢牢把握扩大内需这一战略基点，加快建立扩大消费需求长效机制．释放居民消费潜力。文章提出扩大消费需求的长效机制主要包括要形成收入稳定增长机制、改善供给拉动消费的机制、改善预期让消费者敢于消费的机制。     

经济学角度解析官员道德风险问题

预防和杜绝官员道德风险问题,保证政府的高效廉洁,是一个持久的话题。本文从经济学的角度,利用政府和官员之间的委托—代理关系建立了一个期望效用模型,推导出引发政府官员道德风险的要素。在明确了腐败与额外收益、工资、腐败被发现后的收入、官员的任期、预期贴现率、被发现查处的概率等因素的关系后,提出了对腐败综合治理的对策。     

The moment you decide,you divide: How politicians assess procedural fairness

Are politicians more rational decision makers than citizens? This article contributes to the ongoing debate by examining how politicians and citizens assess the fairness of the process leading to a controversial policy decision. It contains theories as to why it is tempting to match the favourability of policy decision with a fairness assessment of the preceding process, and how politicians and citizens differ in their approach to the task. Having derived three hypotheses, parallel scenario experiments are run in large samples of Swedish politicians and citizens, in which the outcome and fairness of a policy decision process are manipulated. As predicted, it is found that both politicians and citizens match the favourability of the decision with the assessment of the process, that these self-serving biases are stronger among politicians, and that policy engagement accounts for the group-level difference.