Social Institutions and Violence: A Sub‐national Test of Institutional Anomie Theory*

Abstract

Messner and Rosenfeld's institutional anomie theory is grounded in the assumption that relatively higher crime rates in the United States are due to (1) the overwhelming influence of economic motives and institutions in society, and (2) the subjugation of all other social institutions to cultural economic interests (e.g., the American Dream). Our analysis is designed to extend the limited body of empirical research on this theory in several ways. First, we seek to test the utility of institutional anomie theory for predicting crime rates across aggregate units within the United States (counties). Second, we draw out the theory's emphasis on instrumental crime and suggest that measures of noneconomic social, political, familial, religious, and educational institutions will be particularly relevant for explaining instrumental as opposed to expressive violence. Third, in contrast to prior research, we develop conceptual reasons to expect that these factors will primarily mediate (as opposed to moderate) the relationship between economically motivating pressures and instrumental violence. Our negative binomial regression analyses of data from the Supplementary Homicide Reports and various censuses indicate that the measures of noneconomic institutions perform well in explaining both instrumental and expressive homicides, but that these measures mediate the impact of economic pressures (as measured by the Gini coefficient of family income inequality) to commit instrumental violence most strongly. Further, we find only very limited support for the more popular moderation hypothesis.

What Explains Criminal Violence in Mexico City? A Test of Two Theories of Crime

“…Finally, basic cultural institutions are essential for engendering social equality (Bjerregaard and Cochran 2008;Maume and Lee 2003). However, when institutions such as family or associative groups are disrupted, this can impede social integration and pattern maintenance.…”

“…However, Thus, when social institutions -whether economic, political, or cultural -are threatened, strained or collapse, crime is more likely (Figure 2). The relationship between the strength of social institutions and aggregated crime rates is tested in different countries and for different crimes (Messner and Rosenfeld 1997;Chamlin and Cochran 1995;Piquero and Piquero 1998;Savolainen 2000;Maume and Lee 2003;Schoepfer 2004;Kim and Pridemore 2005;Bjerregaard and Cochran 2008;Stults and Baumer 2008). Overall, the studies reviewed tend to support the theory.…”

Everyday-Life Business Deviance Among Chinese SME Owners

“…Strain theorists argue that, when their materialistic goals override their real conditions, materialistic SME owners experience pressure to achieve their objectives (Bernburg, 2002;Johnson and Duberley, 2011;Johnson and Smith, 1999;Maume and Lee, 2003). Despite an insatiable desire to accumulate possessions, legitimate access to attain materialistic targets is constrained because SME owners usually lack sufficient physical, financial, and intellectual resources (Dickson, Weaver, and Hoy, 2006;Lee, Lim, and Tan, 1999).…”

“…These sources cause personal pressure by overemphasizing materialistic achievement and by requiring confidence in institutional fairness, respectively (Agnew, 1992(Agnew, , 2001Bernburg, 2002;Johnson and Duberley, 2011;Johnson and Smith, 1999;Maume and Lee, 2003). We define materialism as the importance placed by SME owners on possessions as a necessary means to arrive at the desired end (Richins and Dawson, 1992), whereas trust in institutional justice is the extent to which SME owners have confidence in the fairness of institutional arrangements (De Clercq and Dakhli, 2009;Jost and Kay, 2010).…”

“…Specifically, first, strain theory historically emphasizes the role that social stratification plays in preventing people from attaining their goals. Compared with means, the influence of the prevalent materialistic goals that motivate members of society has not received sufficient recognition; an omission that requires further exploration (Baumer, 2007;Johnson and Duberley, 2011;Maume and Lee, 2003).…”