Content provided in partnership with
Business Services Industry
Crime and unemployment among youths in the United States, 1958-1990: a time series analysis
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Jan, 1994 by Chester L. Britt
I
Introduction
SOCIOLOGISTS AND ECONOMISTS have a longstanding interest in the relationship between crime and economic conditions (for example, Becker, 1968; Block and Heineke, 1975; Bonger, 1916; Brenner, 1978; Cantor and Land, 1985; Cohen, 1981; Cohen and Felson, 1979a, 1979b; Cohen and Land, 1987a, 1987b; Cohen et al., 1980, 1981; Ehrlich, 1973, 1975; Fox, 1978; Hale and Sabbagh, 1991; Land et al., Forthcoming; Parker and Horwitz, 1986). Relatively little research has examined the effect of economic conditions on the criminal behavior of young persons, however. Smith et al. (1992), Allan and Steffensmeier (1989), Fleischer (1963), and Glaser and Rice (1959) provide some notable exceptions. The lack of attention given to the relationship between youth crime and economic conditions is surprising, since most crimes are committed by young persons (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1983; Steffensmeier et al., 1989). The main goal of this paper is to examine both the contemporaneous and the lagged effects of youth unemployment on crime among youth by using unemployment and arrest time series data for persons aged 16 to 19 years in the United States for the 1958-1990 period.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
There are two main views of the relationship between economic conditions and crime (Cantor and Land, 1985). The motivational perspective expects a positive relationship between crime and poor economic conditions, although there may be two different sources of motivation. One source of motivation may be the frustration that results from people being unable to obtain or to maintain employment at the same time they want to maintain or to improve their standard of living (Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; Greenberg, 1977, 1985; Merton, 1938). Thus, if economic conditions deteriorate over time, the proportion of the population feeling frustrated should increase. The overall effect of an increased level of frustration in the population would be an increased rate of crime. A second source of motivation may be the outcome of a rational choice process, where individuals weigh the costs and benefits of criminal behavior against legitimate behavior (e.g., Becker, 1968; Block and Heineke, 1975). In this view, crime would again be more likely for unemployed persons, since the total cost of crime may be perceived as low relative to the total gains from crime, and imprisonment would not involve the loss of income from employment. In either case, poor economic conditions would be responsible for higher rates of crime by increasing the proportion of the population prone to commit criminal acts.
Greenberg (1985) applied the motivational perspective to the age distribution of crime in an attempt to explain why youth have the highest rates of crime. He hypothesized that employment has become increasingly important to youth, because of a variety of media influences that have increased the perceived needs of youth, at the same time that access to the adult labor market has been restricted. To obtain material possessions (e.g., clothing) and to engage in leisure activities, youth are dependent on funds provided by their parents and/or own employment. In the absence of parental financial support, youth need to obtain some kind of employment. The problem for youth occurs when they discover that access to jobs in the adult labor market is restricted, thereby preventing them from successfully gaining independent economic support to satisfy their perceived needs. The conflicting trends of increased perceived needs and decreased access to the adult labor market are then expected to increase the level of motivation to crime among youth.
The opportunity perspective sees crime as a function of the supply of potential offenders and suitable targets for victimization (Cohen, 1981; Cohen and Felson, 1979a, 1979b; Cohen and Land, 1987a,b; Cohen et al., 1980, 1981; Cook, 1986; Hindelang et al., 1978; Land et al., Forthcoming). In contrast to the motivational perspective, this explanation assumes crime falls during poor economic conditions. As a society experiences an economic downturn, the circulation of persons and new property are reduced. During a recession, as the unemployment rate rises, many more people remain in their homes and/or neighborhoods. Since many property crimes occur while people are absent from their homes (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991), unemployed persons at or near home provide an additional level of protection for their personal property, and should experience lower risks of property crime. Similarly, most personal violence victimizations occur outside the home (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991). By spending a greater proportion of time in or near their homes, unemployed persons should have lower risks of violent victimization due to decreased exposure to potential offenders.
Although this perspective has not been directly tied to the criminal behavior of youth, there appears to be a relatively straight-forward application to the relationship between youth unemployment and crime. The opportunity perspective suggests that when the unemployment rate among youth is high, youth would be more likely to remain at or near home, since they will probably be unable to support all their desired leisure activities (cf. Greenberg, 1985; Smith et al., 1992). In addition, since trends in youth unemployment parallel closely trends in total unemployment,(1) there will likely be greater direct supervision of youth by other unemployed family members and/or immediate neighbors in periods of high unemployment (youth and total). Conversely, as youth are more involved in the labor market, they have greater opportunity to commit crimes, since the level of direct supervision of their behavior is reduced with the increased time spent away from home involved in both employment activities and leisure activities made possible by earnings from that employment.
