Research Summary:Several prominent empirical studies estimate models of a constant proportional effect of prison on crime, finding that effect is substantial and negative. A separate literature argues against the crime-reducing effect of prison but mainly on theoretical grounds. This second literature suggests that the elasticity of the prison/crime relationship is not constant. We provide a model that nests these two literatures. Using data from the United States over 30 years, we find strong evidence that the negative relationship between prison and crime becomes less strongly negative as the scale of imprisonment increases. This revisionist model indicates that (1) at low levels of incarceration, a constant elasticity model underestimates the negative relationship between incarceration and crime, and (2) at higher levels of incarceration, the constant elasticity model overstates the negative effect. Policy Implications:These results go beyond the claim of declining marginal returns, instead finding accelerating declining marginal returns. As the prison population continues to increase, albeit at a slower rate, after three decades of phenomenal growth, these findings provide an important caution that for many jurisdictions, the point of accelerating declining Over the last 25 years, the population behind bars has grown at an astounding rate. From 200,000 inmates in 1973, the federal and state inmate population surpassed the one million mark in 1994, with more recent growth bringing the total to 1.4 million. Through much of this buildup period, researchers have disagreed over the effectiveness of the buildup in reducing the crime rate.

This study assesses competing explanations of inmate collective action using data from a nationwide sample of 317 adult maximum‐and medium‐security state prisons. Most previous studies have relied on data from only those prisons that have experienced riots. Hence, the conditions thought to cause collective outbursts may be equally present in prisons that did not experience such action. The current design allows for a comparison of riot and nonriot prisons. Additionally, this study examines the forces that generate other forms of collective action in prison, such as minor disturbances and inmate work stoppages. The results show that the variables under the administrative‐control theory heading, but not the inmate‐balance theory heading, help account for these events. Some consideration is given to the possibility that these two theories are complementary explanations.

No abstract

Historically, breakdown theory dominated the sociological study of collective action. In the 1970s, this theory was found to be increasingly unable to account for contemporaneous events and newly discovered historical facts. Resource mobilization theory displaced breakdown theory as the dominant paradigm. Yet the evidence against breakdown theory is weak once a distinction is made between routine and nonroutine collective action. Several recent contributions affirm the explanatory power of breakdown theory for nonroutine collective action. Breakdown theory also contributes to an understanding of the use of governmental force against protest and of the moral features of collective action. Breakdown and resource mobilization theories explain different types of phenomena, and both are needed to help account for the full range of forms of collective action.

No abstract