1
Socio Economic Factors Influencing Delinquency
Introduction
Contemporary delinquency theories can be deployed in supporting economic
deprivation as a contributing factor in elucidating many crimes, though it is directly linked to
property crimes like theft (Borraz & González, 2011). However, this does not imply that the
cause-and-effect association exists. This is because many lower-class citizens do not choose
to engage in crime. According to Fajnzylber, Lederman, & Loayza (2002), theorists
frequently consider other aspects of social disorganization, which are available in areas where
poverty is absent. Such aspects of social disorganizations include poor housing, single-family
homes, unemployment, lack of housing, and the absence of other community and social
controls (Finklea, 2011). It would be impossible, if not difficult; to distinguish the aspects
and evaluate how each of them solely affects the crime rates (Gould, Weinberg, & Mustard,
2002). In this regard, this research paper discusses the various socio-economic factors
influencing delinquency.
According to early theories of sociology, people have a free will to engage in or avoid
criminal behaviors (Imrohoroglu, Merlo, & Rupert, 2000). The rational choice theory draws
from classical criminology in which people weigh the risks and benefits of engaging in crime.
Kelly (2000) described the evolution to a large organic society as resulting in societal or
anomie strain. This can be associated with the conflict perception of crime, in which the
haves have written the law to safeguard themselves from the have-nots. Similarly, street
offenses are accorded greater sentences than the crimes in the suites (Raphael & WinterEbmer, 2001). The poor are often sentenced harshly, whereas the rich are sentenced leniently
for crimes that are even more serious. This “interactionist” perception of crime implies that
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
2
crime and deviance are described based on those in power. It also implies that crime is given
a meaning by the manner in which people respond to it (Verdier & Zenou, 2001).
Kelly (2000) believed that the physical and social environment influence the behavior
of an individual. Urbanization is perceived as the major source of crime because the people
who move into the city are more than the number of jobs in the city. Large number of jobless
individuals becomes a burden and results in the creation of social work organizations, which
needs to support them. In spite of this, crimes rates appeared to increase in the city slums.
This is very pertinent in explaining property theft or any other delinquency designed to offer
an illegal gain. Raphael & Winter-Ebmer, (2001) found out that the law enforcement is
confronted by the fact that residents within the neighborhoods have little in common
concerning customs or values.
According to social theories advanced by Imrohoroglu, Merlo, & Rupert (2000), an
individual might learn something by watching others or television. If a person, especially a
child, resides in a neighborhood with high crime rates, he or she is vulnerable to acting out
similar behavior he or she witnesses daily. This process of learning other behavior via seeing
is referred to as behavior reinforcement of behavior modeling. Behavior might be explicitly
reinforced, which is copying the behavior, which has been purely observed (Dutta & Husain,
2009). When family members or friends steal, the young vulnerable children are likely to
copy that criminal behavior and start a life of theft in order support their own lifestyle. The
concept is that an individual, in this case the youth, imitate others in the proportion to the
frequency of contact with those adult criminals.
Similarly, Kelly’s (2000) differential relationship theory pointed out that criminal
behavior is learned in social environment. Crimes arise because of the combination of values,
opportunity and situation. Differential relationship is a factually reference to the groupings,
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
3
which form between people, and not essentially criminals. The differential relationships are a
system of a culture and values within the grouping. This relationship might be viewed in
gangs of like-minded criminals who commit a crime in a group (Gelsthorpe & Morris, 2002).
The subcultures formed in gangs, groups and neighborhoods left by middle-class
residents who relocated to suburbs influence crime. According to Finklea (2011), these
subcultures are inherently malicious, negative and non-utilitarian. The youths residing in
slum neighborhoods might feel frustrated with their status, similar to is pointed out by
conflict theories. Raphael & Winter-Ebmer (2001) added that most of these subcultures
within gangs, or groups are frequently subcultures of deviance. Whereas subcultures might
develop among youths who are poor, the members of an inner city slum neighborhood or a
gang are particularly suffering from poverty and unemployment. A community that is not
integrated might lack social control and organization over juvenile criminals, and cause the
youths to associate in groups that provide a sense of belonging and respect (Mehlum, Moene,
& Torvik, 2005). This might also be referred to as conflict subcultures that seek belonging
and unlawful moneymaking opportunities.
Strain, Anomie and Social Disorganization
Strain is another social determinant of crime. According to Verdier & Zenou (2001),
strain emerges during the times of change, as the society becomes complex and organic. It
might also result in times when the society strongly emphasizes the attainment of material
possessions such as wealth. The society’s structure might limit the likelihood of individuals
to attain success via socially acknowledged and institutionalized means. In addition, strain
results from its theoretical components like lack of opportunity, poverty and the creation of
unlawful groups (Murray, 2007). Anomie causes people to develop optional values that
frequently rebel against societal in order to attain success via unlawful means. Bizarrely, in
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
4
time of economic growth, the rates of crime actually elevate. The theory of relative
deprivation points out that greater success of some individuals in the society sometimes
encourages the lower-class individuals to engage in crime for their own self-gain. This might
also be the case for the juvenile offenders (Neumayer, 2003). The difference in wealth status
between families might motivate youths from low class families to commit crimes to benefit
their families. This usually occurs because the youths from these poor families admire the
status of those from high-status family. Relative deprivation is more of a comparative, and
perception in the minds of a person concerning his or her surroundings.
Finklea (2011) articulated the concepts of social disorganization that attempted to
prove that the life in slum neighborhood creates a proclivity of engaging in criminal
activities. This is particularly true for property crimes because the residents of these
neighborhoods have little material possessions and might feel the only alternative to acquire
material wealth are to steal or engage in unlawful moneymaking activities. Imrohoroglu,
Merlo, & Rupert (2000), in the criticism of the concepts of social disorganization, pointed out
those higher rates of crime might be an indication of the presence of police in a certain
neighborhood. Higher rates of crime might also be a reflection of the notion that the police
make the decision to arrest based on the social status of a criminal.
Similar studies concerning social ecology have also argued that ecological condition
influence individuals to engage in crime (Seiter & Kadela, 2003). Some of the social
ecological conditions that increase the rates of crime include low income, poor housing,
transient residents’ lack of social control and lack of social organization. Most recent studies
on social disorganization still point out that social disorganization results in delinquency due
to the weakened social control. According to Borraz & González (2011), social control is a
key remedy for social disorganization and can be attained through cleaning the
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
5
neighborhoods, establishing crime watch groups, establishing agencies to assist people,
disciplining in or out of the home and other optional punishment to imprisonment.
The broken windows theory also describes the socioeconomic influences on
delinquency (Pager, 2003). The theory relates to social organization because it associates the
decay in the neighborhood to an elevation in crime rates. According to this theory, if petty
crimes are not dealt with or decaying facilities are not maintained, it indicates a lack of
concern in the community by residents. It, therefore, encourages worse crime. This might
increase the number of gangs, vandalism and drug abuse. Other crimes that this might also
increase are robbery, theft and burglary (Mehlum, Moene, & Torvik, 2005). There is a view
that no individual is watching and no one seems to be on the lookout for such crimes. Social
disorganization and crimes are perceived to derive from unemployment, population density,
low collective efficacy and poverty. People in the community are responsible for determining
what their values are and what they want. Social norms or influence shapes the behavior of
people in the community (Gould, Weinberg, & Mustard, 2002). According to the broken
windows theory, urban deterioration is the main cause of crime. In fact, it is the supporting
case for the adoption of community policing. Via community policing, law enforcement
efforts are directed and strengthened at target areas. Nevertheless, if law enforcement officers
spend much energy and time, they might create hostility from the neighborhoods feeling they
are being unreasonably targeted.
Social structure perspective of crime has three related branches. The first is social
disorganization theory and it focuses on the conditions of the environment as the major
causes of increased crime rates. This theory considers lack of social control, neighborhood
conditions, conflicting social values, family conditions, unemployment, single-family homes
and criminal groups and gangs as causes of criminal activities (Murray, 2007). The second is
the strain theory, which focuses on the conflict between the means and goals. This theory
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
6
considers the uneven distribution of power and wealth, alternative methods of attaining goals,
such as theft, drug trafficking and robber, and frustration as causes of criminal activities. The
third is cultural deviance theory, which is a combination of the above two theories. According
to cultural deviance theory, the lower class culture has its own beliefs and values, which often
support criminal activity such as stealing from those in the upper class culture. According to
Finklea (2011), these cultures might be spread or taught to others via the transmission of
culture from one generation to another. However, the transmission of culture can also be
explained in terms of social learning.
Kelly (2000) agrees with the theory of social disorganization, though he argues that
other factors might provide as much cause for committing crime as poverty does. While
transient neighbors, racial heterogeneity, broken families and other variables are popularly
found in lower class neighborhoods with high crime rates, similar variables can be linked to
increases in crime in both upper class and middle-class neighborhoods. Kelly’s (2000) work
seeks to detach these variables in order to show that every variable can be associated with
increases in crime and not just poverty. Nevertheless, poor, lower class neighborhoods might
exhibit these variables more prevalently than any other neighborhood.
Economics and Crime Rates
Many researchers have in any case indirectly associated poverty and crime. It is
widely perceived that poor people are more likely to commit a crime, at least a street crime,
than the rich people are. Nevertheless, this is associated to property crime and not violent
crime. In rural neighborhoods, where crime is less often, violent actions are of the same
proportions and are frequently associated with socio-economic conditions. According to
Fajnzylber, Lederman, & Loayza (2002), the poor have greater encouragement to steal in
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
7
order to meet their means than the rich do. Consequently, they only choose violence when
needed to achieve the crime such as in an armed robbery.
Borraz & González (2011) wrote about the social disorganization theory, where
poverty is one of the three variables associated with rates of crime. This is particularly
accurate of the theft and linked crimes. They found out that where the neighborhood had high
prevalence of poverty, violent crime was extremely high. Kelly (2000) suggests that the
exposure to crime and violence results in the predisposition to violence. Indeed, according to
Dutta & Husain (2009), almost half of all homicide cases arise from interpersonal
disagreement with another. However, there is still the subject of what proportion of such
violent offenses is associated with poverty. According to positivist criminology, criminal
incentives might be beyond the control of the criminal (Borraz & González, 2011). Possibly,
poverty is a motivation for committing criminal activity, though there is some contradiction
in associating economic factors with every crime. According to Raphael & Winter-Ebmer
(2001), this might be because of the problem of accounting for multiple factors in research
such as unemployment, divorce, neighborhood decay broken homes or other factors.
According to many authors, persons from poor families and communities are most likely to
rob, steal, sell drugs and make illicit gains. Nevertheless, it is helpful to have the results that
distinguish violent crimes committed with a profit motive and those committed with nonprofit motive.
Quetelet conducted one of the early studies on rates of crime and economic conditions
(Gelsthorpe & Morris, 2002). His findings revealed that wealthy communities exhibit many
property crimes. According to him, this is because there is more to steal. Alternatively, poor
communities exhibit fewer rates of property crimes. This is because there is no equality in
such communities. Every individual in such community is equally poor and there is nothing
to steal. The lesson from Quetelet’s study is that if poverty motivates an individual to steal,
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
8
then he or she is likely to go to rich communities to do it. In relation to unemployment, as a
cause of crime, there is no convincing evidence pointing out that unemployment motivates an
individual to commit crime. Nevertheless, on a macro-level, an elevation in unemployment
rate is followed by an elevation in rates of crime. Research difficulties in this area frequently
deals with various causes such as poverty, broken homes, divorce, poor housing, poor quality,
residential mobility, racial and ethnic mix and population turnover.
Socio-economic classes and strata in a society are a depiction of crime directly. There
is no doubt that low-class living provides the conditions that result in increased rates of
crime. If the success of an individual is measured by material possessions, status, and wealth,
then the poor might see unlawful ways as the only way to acquire these possessions. This is
perhaps because the lawful ways will not enable own a home or acquire education (Seiter &
Kadela, 2003).
This is an association between rational choice and socio-economics. According to
Fajnzylber, Lederman, & Loayza (2002), socio-economic factors can be classified into
exhaustive degree, as Finklea, (2011) has done, though the outcome might simply imply that
people make economic decisions based on rational decision-making. A person looks at his
surrounding economically, and looks for economic benefit via illegal or legal ways. There
might be fundamental social explanations, like poverty, though the person rationally thinks of
committing a theft and analyses the possible risks and benefits as well. A wealthy individual
makes a rational decision not to steal, though he also has no encouragement to steals. This is
because his or her standard of living is sufficient.
Rational choice has also been criticized. Raphael & Winter-Ebmer (2001) argued that
it is legitimate but weak. According to Raphael & Winter-Ebmer (2001), there are various
factors and variable explaining the decision of an individual to commit a criminal activity. In
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
9
addition, other social factors need to be considered, even if an individual makes a rational
decision to commit a crime. Comprehending the behavior of the criminal requires an observer
to view the big picture and understand the influences behind his or her criminal actions.
Whereas the decision might be rational, the fundamental conditions of being poor would
encourage many people to steal. If an individual is starving to death, it is very difficult to
resist the urge steal in order to eat.
Between violence and poverty, it is not clear which one causes the other. Both
violence and poverty go together (Borraz & González, 2011). For instance, a basic service
worker might cancel his or her service in some neighborhoods since he is often assaulted and
robbed. Consequently, even violent crimes are encouraged by the desire to steal property or
money. A study of these same juvenile individuals indicates that they fear that they will never
succeed materially through conventional ways. Some people have blamed the poor system of
education in these societies, where it is apparent that none of the youth could secure jobs
other than at fast food restaurants. In addition, good teachers might dare go to violent
neighborhoods because of fear. Is poverty encouraging violence, or is it violence encouraging
poverty? Possibly, the social structure and social support is absolutely gone to in those
neighborhoods, leaving continuous social disorganization.
Finklea (2011) compiled various studies on rural criminology by linking socioeconomic conditions and delinquency behavior. According to Finklea (2011), there is a
positive association between the rates of crime and socio-economic variables and factors such
as inequality, per capita income, rates of unemployment. Nevertheless, there is negative
association between rates of crime and the proportion of population living below the poverty
line. Most crimes take place when legal avenues for gainful employment are not available.
Verdier & Zenou (2001) recommends that rural areas need to expand economic opportunities,
like constructing industries instead of just focusing on agricultural activities.
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
10
Finklea (2011) also indirectly examines the association between crime and economic
conditions. According to Finklea (2011), there is a relationship between crime rates and the
welfare of recipients. Nevertheless, in those neighborhoods, there is higher prevalence of
broken homes of single family. These neighborhoods might not have that social structure or
social bonding, which would deter crime. Finklea (2011) also does not directly associate
crime with poverty, though she associates poverty and social disorganization that is usually
prevalent in very poor neighborhoods with high crime rates.
Another economic condition that might have elevated crime rates in the US was home
foreclosures. The latest recession has been associated by the falling prices of homes and
increases in mortgage crimes, which resulted in home foreclosures (Mehlum, Moene, &
Torvik, 2005). As home prices declined for several years, homeowners across the US, found
themselves owing more on their mortgages than the market values of their homes. This
resulted in a fast increase in the crime rates on mortgage payments. Economic recession
commenced around December 2007. The data at that time indicated that about 2.04 per cent
of home loans were in foreclosures. At the end of recession, the percentage of home loans in
foreclosures had risen to 4.30. This percentage continued rising after recession. The increase
in home foreclosures had a significant impact on rates of crime in the US. The effect
foreclosures on neighborhoods differ widely based on the characteristics of the neighborhood
involved. According to Borraz & González (2011), in neighborhoods where there is high
demand for residential, foreclosures might not have significant effect. On the other hand, in
neighborhoods with very low demand for residential property, the impact of foreclosures on
crime rates might be significant.
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
11
Social Development and Social Control
Social development model is not a theory for the illumination of crime. It is a
complex, general solution for addressing elevating rates of crime. The concept held by the
social development model is that risk factors need to be decreased (Gould, Weinberg, &
Mustard, 2002). The quality of life of the community or neighborhood must be increased and
the educations and educational opportunities must be improved. The community and family
need to cooperate in building pro-social bonds with youthful adults and children. The
community and family can achieve this by giving them positive influence. This is effective,
especially if the family has the ways of supplying family members with material needs. If
not, theft might be seen as the only opportunity to fulfill those needs.
According to Borraz & González (2011), interactional theory concurs with the social
development theory in that criminal activities can be mapped out to the breakdown of social
bonds. Interactional theory, similar to social development model, affirms that social
disorganization and social class increases the risks of engaging in crime. Interactional theory
also suggests that criminals will create bonds with other peers who have similar poor values
system. This implies that criminals are bi-directional in hunting for the company of other
criminals. This theory is fundamentally similar to other social constructs of deliquescent
behaviors in the sense that individuals define crime in terms of the context of the world
around them. The fact that crime derives from social interactions is reprehensible conduct.
Social control theory tackles the controls, which the society influences over the
human behavior. Many people are willing to conform to the laws and norms of the society.
Consequently, the behavior of many people is held in check by the social aspects like career
goals, family, ethical standards, and community and school organizations. Finklea (2011)
argued that the behavior of an individual could be regulated by social response such as
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
12
punishment. Social regulations seem to disappear where social relationships and norms
breakdown. Nevertheless, in order to be efficient in sustaining a desired behavior within the
society, social bonds need to be between people who are submissive to the social norms, not
with criminals. In relation to this theory, parents must remain close to their children, the
society must sustain a very strong intentional control over the establishment of uniform
norms for every member to adhere to, and the discipline by society and family must be
certain.
Labeling or social reaction theory explains the reaction of the society to crime and the
manner in which the labeled criminal responds to the new label. Seiter & Kadela (2003) point
out that labeling refers to a social construction that is based on what the society views as a
crime. Labeling a person as delinquent will cause him to live up to that tag. The person reacts
to the images others have tagged him, like thief, delinquent or troublemaker. Whether the
criminal likes it or not, the society has provided him or her with a new identity. Criminals are
most likely to adopt the new identity, internalize it, and live up to it. According to Finklea
(2011), the label of a criminal is stigma that produces low self-image, self-respect, and selfimage. It results in secondary crime, where a person commits activities that are more criminal
in order to keep their assigned criminal label. Pragmatic evidence points out those labeling
influences the behavior of an offender. However, the possibility of a criminal to re-offend can
be the result of the limitation put on the criminal’s life by having a conviction on his record.
In order to correct labeling, a supportive or a positive approach can be used to de-emphasize
the criminal element and stigma, such as calling convicts offenders. In this respect, labeling
theory can be associated with the humanistic aspect of classic theory of criminology.
According to Borraz & González (2011), crime is a weapon of the have-nots and the
haves. Marxist referred to this power-differential as the instrumental view in which the rich
impose their standards onto the poor. The Marxists model views crime as a depiction of class
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
13
struggle. Poor neighborhoods are motivated to commit crime, whereas the rich are more
eager to impose very harsh punishments on the poor. In this model, the economy considers
economic structure and class as major causation of crime. The notion is that corporate wealth
and capitalism for some individual cause economic disparity that elevates crime rates by
weakening the social bonds. Possibly, this implies that in a socialist community, every
individual would be in the same socio-economic status. As such, no conflicting group would
engage in criminal activities. If this is true, it may pose a question concerning how the poor
would change and enforce law if they were in power. Verdier & Zenou (2001) argues that
neighborhoods and individuals are singled out for law enforcement action. The group in
authority regulates and controls the other group via a greater enforcement efforts and stronger
police presence. Crime rates elevate when a free society reverts to a socialist system.
According to Gould, Weinberg, & Mustard (2002), an offender involved in property
or theft crime is significantly encouraged by greed and he or she acts based on the rational
decision. Despite the offender not being very educated, he or she can analyze the possible
risks and benefits of committing a crime. While recognizing that social disorganization and
strain might be causation for committing crime, respective criminals still contemplate on
what they are committing. In fact, they can distinguish between wrong and right doings.
However, Fajnzylber, Lederman, & Loayza, (2002) do not strongly emphasize on social
disorganization as a contributing factor, except in areas experiencing high rates of crime.
According to them, city slums would the only exception because the entire community is a
dilapidated neighborhood in which no individuals seem to care. Social disorganizations might
not explain the irregular crime in an average community or neighborhood. Whatever the
financial or societal pressures, some criminals might still consider the risks and benefits of
committing a crime. On the other hand, the theory of greater punishments or deterrence
theory might only prevent a law abiding and rational individual who is not likely to engage in
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
14
crime. A typical criminal commits a crime, irrespective of the benefits of risks of engaging in
such activities.
Social learning or modeling is most suitable in explaining juvenile criminals. If a
juvenile sees a family member or a friend commit a crime, then he or she will usually finds it
extremely easy to commit similar offense as a way of making money. Both juvenile thief and
adult burglar are most likely to steal when he or she bonds with other like-minded criminals.
Finklea (2011) does not view labeling as strong explanation for increased crime rates. This is
because, according to her, an individual is more unlikely to engage in crime because the
society has labeled him or her as deviant, ex-con or thief. In addition, an offender is simply
living up to the reputation he or she has created for himself or herself.
Conclusion
People have a free will to engage in or avoid criminal behaviors. The rational choice
theory draws from classical criminology in which people weigh the risks and benefits of
engaging in crime. Physical and social environment influence the behavior of an individual.
Urbanization is perceived as the major source of crime because the people who moved into
the city were more than the number of jobs in the city. Large number of jobless individuals
became a burden and resulted in the creation of social work organizations, which needed to
support them. An individual might learn something by watching others or television. If a
person, especially a child, resides in a neighborhood with high crime rates, he or she is
vulnerable to acting out similar behavior he or she witnesses daily. This results in differing
states of “rationality”. These differing states of rationality are directly proportionate to the
negative or positive stimuli encountered in the environment.
The broken windows theory also describes the socioeconomic influences on
delinquency. The theory relates to social organization because it associates the decay in the
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
15
neighborhood to an elevation in crime rates. Socio-economic classes and strata in a society
are a depiction of crime directly. There is no doubt that low-class living provides the
conditions that result in increased rates of crime. An offender involved in property or theft
crime is significantly encouraged by greed and he or she acts based on the rational decision.
Social learning or modeling is most suitable in explaining juvenile criminals. If a juvenile
sees a family member or a friend commit a crime, then he or she will usually finds it
extremely easy to commit a similar offense as a way of making money.
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
16
References
Borraz, F., & González, N. (2011). Economic and socio-demographic determinants of crime
in Uruguay. Well-being and Social Policy , 6 (2), 45-73.
Dutta, M., & Husain, Z. (2009). Determinants of crime rates: crime deterrence and growth in
post-liberalized india. Munich Personal RePEc Archive , 45 (1), 45-53.
Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D., & Loayza, N. (2002). What causes violent crime? European
Economic Review , 46 (2), 1323-1357.
Finklea, K. (2011). Economic Downturns and Crime . Washington: Congress Research
Service.
Gelsthorpe, L., & Morris, A. (2002). Women's imprisonment in England and Wales: A penal
paradox. Criminology and Criminal Justice , 2 (3), 277-301.
Gould, E., Weinberg, B., & Mustard, D. (2002). Crime rates local labor opportunities in the
United States: 1979-1997. Review of Economic Studies , 84 (1), 45-61.
Imrohoroglu, A., Merlo, A., & Rupert, P. (2000). On the political economy of income
redistribution and crime. International Economic Review , 41 (1), 1-25.
Kelly, M. (2000). Inequality and Crime. The Review of Economics and Statistics , 82 (4),
530-539.
Mehlum, H., Moene, K., & Torvik, R. (2005). Crime induced poverty traps. Journal of
Development Economics , 77 (2), 325-340.
Murray, J. (2007). The cycle of punishment: Social exclusion of prisoners and their children.
Criminology and Criminal Justice , 7 (1), 55-81.
SOCIO ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DELINQUENCY
17
Neumayer, E. (2003). Good policy can lower violent crime: evidence from a cross national
panel of homicide rates, 1980-97. Journal of Peace Research , 40 (6), 619-640.
Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology , 108, 937975.
Raphael, S., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2001). Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime.
Journal of Law and Economics , 44, 259-283.
Seiter, R., & Kadela, K. (2003). Prisoner reentry: what works, what does not, and what is
promising. Crime & Delinquency , 49 (3), 360-388.
Verdier, T., & Zenou, Y. (2001). Racial beliefs, location and the causes of crime.
International Economic Review , 2 (3), 23-37.