The logic of agency or the logic of structure in the concept of white collar crime: a review

Abstract

Since 60s the white collar crime concept is divided in occupational crime versus corporate crime, exposing two different causal primacy: an agency logic and a structural logic. The logic of agency argues that corporate crime concept and the logic of structure is more or less useless for white collar crime research. The logic of structure argues that corporate crime has a validity in its own and describe a dimension of white collar criminality that the logic of agency doesn't reach. The validity of this two positions is discussed by four crucial issues: The status of juristic persona, explanatory value, mens rea and suffering by punishment. It ends up in a Soritie paradox to which a three valued formal logic by the Stoicists Chrysippus is applied. The conclusion is that the logic of agency has the primacy, and the concept of occupational crime should be the prime concept for white collar crime.This essay is a critical review of the two-part division of the concept of white collar crime (WCC) into the subcategories of occupational crime (OC) and corporate crime (CC) that has been the norm in the field of criminology since the 1960s. OC is taken to mean crime committed by self-interested individuals in their occupation against clients, customers, etc. and as employees against their employers, while CC is understood as crime committed by corporate officials in the larger interests of a corporation and as those offenses committed by the corporation itself against other organizations ([1]:188). Traditionally then, the two different causal primacies of agency logic and structural logic have been seen as underlying WCC [2]. Both OC and CC have been seen as legitimate subjects of research because they have been identified in several nations' jurisdictions with more or less specified sections of law.1 But from a criminological point of view this division of the WCC concept has been seriously questioned for both Crime Law Soc Change (2018) 69:385-399 https://doi

Corporate crime: a logical misconception, but with one analytical point

“…In a previous work (Alalehto, 2018), I took a more cautious attitude toward whether the concept of corporate crime, ultimately, was right. This was a result of the analytical strategy I chose in the earlier work.…”

“…Even if there is variation in how individuals are estimating the very same kind of variables in their decision-making, different structural conditions set the framework for the outcome of their decision. This happens because corporations are irrational entities, they are multi-organisms of different conditions, of imperfect communication structure, with different goals and relationships of power and segments of different moral experiences (Alalehto, 2018, pp. 389-390).…”

“…At the horizontal levels, with barriers between the units, with distinct responsibilities, that have limited knowledge of other units based on taken-for-granted values that other units do their job. Also, partly the vertical dimension, where the hierarchal levels are decoupled (Monahan and Quinn, 2006) from each other and to the leadership who is to some extent disconnected from what actually takes place in each sub-unit (Alalehto, 2018). Altogether this can promote a collective outcome of criminality with no obvious criminal intention because every member or unit can do the right thing in their areas but all-in-all produce a collective misdemeanor (Tännsjö, 2007).…”

“…However, this argument shows logical uncertainty and even logical inconsistency. As Alalehto (2018) shows, it is uncertain if a corporation has a mind and a will, therefore, it is uncertain that a corporation has a mind to feel guilt and consequently, to be criminally liable for a corporate crime. Further, it is uncertain if a corporation can feel shame, and therefore, suffer for a corporate crime.…”

Corporate crime: a logical misconception, but with one analytical point

“…At the horizontal levels, with barriers between the units, with distinct responsibilities, that have limited knowledge of other units based on taken-for-granted values that other units do their job. Also partly the vertical dimension, where the hierarchal levels are decoupled (Monahan and Quinn, 2006) from each other and to the leadership who is to some extent disconnected from what actually takes place in each sub-unit (Alalehto, 2018). Altogether this can promote a collective outcome of criminality with no obvious criminal intention, because every member or unit can do the right thing in their areas but all-in-all produce a collective misdemeanor (Tännsjö, 2007).…”