Democracy, Inequality, Modernization, Routine Activities, and International Variations in Personal Crime Victimization

Abstract

Using the International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS), this study investigates the relative contribution of macro-level variables (democracy level, modernization, world system status, and inequality) and individual-level variables (marital status, age, gender, education, income) in predicting the occurrence and intensity of personal crime victimization. The analysis utilizes multilevel regression, which controls for the ‘‘nesting’’ of individuals living in the same nation and controls for unmeasured random effects among the 42 nations under study. The results of the zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) regression analysis indicate that individual characteristics are better predictors of both the occurrence and intensity of personal crime victimization than are macro-level variables related to political and economic conditions of nations. Findings of the current study diverge from those of previous international studies that used official crime data.

Exploring the Relationship between Neoliberalism and Homicide: A Cross-National Perspective

“…Previous literature indicates that the modernization thesis is a common theoretical perspective informing comparative studies of crime (Nivette 2011;Ouimet 2012;Pridemore and Trent 2010;Shelley 1981). The modernization process can be related to crime in a number of ways, including the disruption of traditional forms of social control (Robbins and Pettinicchio 2012); the expansion of opportunities for crime (Uludag et al 2009); the generation of social and economic changes that produce social disorganization and conflict, including population heterogeneity (Antonaccio and Tittle 2007;Gartner 1990); the production of either absolute or relative deprivation (Chamlin and Cochran 2006;Pridemore 2008); and an increase in anomie and social strain (Bjerregaard and Cochran 2008;Messner and Rosenfeld 1997).…”

Regional, structural, and demographic predictors of violent victimization: A cross-national, multilevel analysis of 112 countries

“…As past research using the ICVS has generally used binary measures of marital status (e.g. married or single) (van Kesteren et al, 2014; Lee, 2000; Uludag et al, 2009; van Wilsem et al, 2003), this study contributes to the literature by showing that domestic partnerships have a similar protective effect against violent victimization as marriage. Additionally, it suggests that the difference in the likelihood of violent victimization between those who are single or widowed compared to those who are married is small, whereas the difference is larger for those who are separated or divorced.…”

“…However, these results show that compared to primary education, secondary and tertiary education significantly increase the odds of experiencing violent victimization. This may be because individuals with more education participate in more activities outside the home, placing them at a greater risk of victimization (Uludag et al, 2009) or because those with higher levels of education are better able to respond to survey questions (e.g. they understand what mugging and assault mean) (Hough, 1984).…”

Individual and Structural Opportunities

“…Uludag et al (2009), for example, define violence as personal theft, robbery, assault, and sex offenses. These all-encompassing categories ignore how opportunities might vary across different types of violent crime (Cornish & Clarke, 1986).…”