Cross-national homicide: a review of the current literature

Abstract

Since LaFree's review of 34 cross-national homicide studies in 1999, an additional 50 studies have been published on this topic. There have been a few reviews of the extant literature, and a meta-analysis of cross-national predictors of homicide. However, none of these have directly assessed the degree to which the subsequent research has heeded the recommendations provided by LaFree, nor considered the long-term implications of his analysis for ongoing cross-national homicide research. We extend the literature by updating the review conducted by LaFree and detailing the major changes that have occurred in this body of research since the late 1990s. Our review reveals that recent studies appear to have taken into account LaFree's recommendations, particularly in regard to data sources, theoretical perspectives, and variable choices. We conclude that while advances in this field have been made, there are issues that have remained problematic over time and should be considered by researchers engaged in cross-national homicide research. IntroductionResearch on cross-national homicide spans five decades. Since the early 1960s, over 85 quantitative studies have examined the issue of cross-national homicide rates. In 1999, Gary LaFree published the first comprehensive review of cross-national homicide research, analyzing 34 academic articles published between 1965 and 1997. He reviewed data sources, independent and control variable specification, methodological issues (e.g., sample sizes, sampling procedures, and homicide definitions), theoretical perspectives, and significance of findings. He then outlined several recommendations for future cross-national homicide research based on his analysis of these 34 studies.Since 1999 (i.e., LaFree's study), the extant literature on cross-national homicide has flourished, with over 55 quantitative studies published assessing the nature and extent of cross-national homicide in nearly one-third the time span of LaFree's study. Of these 55 more recent studies, over one-third (18 articles) make reference to LaFree's (1999) review. This includes seven articles that use LaFree as a source for review of the cross-national homicide literature, another seven articles that cite his study as a justification for their use of the World Health Organization (WHO) data, and six that refer to

Reliability and validity of cross-national homicide data: a comparison of UN and WHO data

“…In addition, the inclusion of developing nations typically results in a shorter range of years (Lappi-Seppälä & Lehti, 2014). Many researchers have attempted to maximize sample size in cross-national studies (Koeppel, Rhineberger-Dunn, & Mack, 2015). Predictor and control variables were selected on the basis of indicators that have been consistently found to be associated with variations in cross-national homicide rates (Nivette, 2011;Trent & Pridemore, 2012): poverty (infant mortality rate), Human Development Index, quality of governance, female labor participation, and male-to-female sex ratio.…”

“…For example, studies evaluating American data have included at least 30 years (Ansari & He, 2012;Berg & Lauritsen, 2015). There is a trend of increased cooperation of nations in 25 collecting data (Koeppel et al, 2015) and with time, more rigorous longitudinal analyses can be carried out.…”

The changing face of homicide research: the shift in empirical focus and emerging research trends

“…Those theories that were given much weight previously, such as modernization/social disorganization perspectives, have seemingly been replaced by a greater emphasis on, for example; aspects of economic inequality, stress, deprivation, or poverty (Koeppel et al, 2015). Newer theoretical frameworks that have emerged in the past few years also include social support and sex ratio theories, as well as perspectives related to gun possession and availability, and alcohol sales, use, and consumption (Koeppel et al, 2015). Underlying this shift is the embracement of macro-social approaches to understanding homicide, rather than a reliance on simplistic social-psychological explanations.…”

“…One notable consequence of this has been a shift from nomothetic analyses towards more individually-focused, ideographic approaches to studying homicide. Koeppel et al (2015), in their extensive review of the extant homicide literature, draw attention to the problem of the previous lack of disaggregated studies of homicide, discussing the notable impacts that this was having on the development of the field more generally.…”

“…These include: very limited availability of reliable measures in large parts of the world (e.g. Africa); legal systems and legal classifications vary; differing points in criminal justice systems at which homicides are recorded, for example when the offence is discovered or following further investigation or court outcome; figures are for completed homicides but, in some countries, the police register any death that cannot immediately be attributed to other causes as homicide (Homicide Index, 2014); changes in country borders; statistics are collected in different ways; a lack of clarity in definitions and varying definitions between countries (Koeppel, Rhineberger-Dunn & Mack, 2015). Caution should be therefore exercised in comparing homicide rates across countries.…”