Social disorganisation theory—Delinquency and

crimes with reference to poverty.

Parnika Sharma
A3211119092, Sec:B
B.A, L.L.B (H)
Amity Law School, Noida

1
Abstract
This paper aims to establish through textual and content analysis of previous studies and
research conducted in the support of a linkage between poverty and crime; that people living
in socially disorganised environments, as suggested by social disorganisation theory, tend to
engage more in criminal behaviour. The theory suggests that the living environment matters
when it comes to predicting illegal activity and claimed that delinquency was not caused at
the individual level, but is a normal response by normal individuals to abnormal conditions.
Social disorganisation theory is widely used as one of the important predictors of crime.
Social disorganisation is caused when social order gets disrupted as social order requires a
sufficient condition for its continuity. The social disorder can be caused by poverty,
unemployment, crime political corruption etc. The focus of this paper is poverty.
In this paper, I will look into the problem drawn out from the theory of social disorganisation
that populations living under poverty are vulnerable to fall under the poverty line are more
likely to indulge in criminal activities and have higher crime rates. While looking into the
problem I will focus on the connection between social Disorganisation theory and
delinquency or crime concerning one variable of this theory: poverty including the example
of Indian states. The Paper will research poverty and crime in general by reviewing and
covering data gathered from both western studies and research but poverty and crime
scenario in India has been taken as a subject for study in particular as an example.
For that journals and research papers with data on Indian, states will be utilised. When talking
about crime, IPC crimes that are economic goal-oriented like property theft will be
considered and not violent crimes like murder.
The hypothesis of this research is poor living conditions tends to make people engage in
crime.
An analysis of poverty and social progress across India's States would help to analyse the
different rates of progress in improving living standards across not just India but other
developing countries as well.
Ideally, I wanted to look solely into that research done on the linkage of people living in
poverty and crime in India and its states. However, for developing or emerging economies, I
could only find a few studies and proper data was not available. Also In some cases, only the
most serious crimes are counted, neglecting the less serious ones, while in some other cases
there is serious undercounting to show that crime has fallen, which could be temptation
around election times.
For this paper, secondary research will be conducted by way of a doctrinal approach by
textual and content analysis. Various doctrinal sources like websites, web portals, online
published journals, Research papers and studies including different textbook material on the
topic will be used for data collection.
The studies reviewed above indicate that social disorganization is an important predictor of
crime and that social disorganization has an impact on crime by affecting several mediating
processes that facilitate crime. The findings indicate the linkages between economic
deprivation and social disorganization when attempting to explain crime.
However, even though the paper establishes a link between poverty and crime, it does not
prove that the impoverished will commit crimes given the necessity and the opportunity.
Combining several factors will determine the true motive of criminals and not just poverty is
the determining factor.

Introduction
An association between poverty and crime in research papers has long been assumed. Karl
Marx implied this relationship when he suggested that crime was the inevitable result of
economic class struggle. In 1862, Victor-Marie Hugo published his famous Les Miserables,

2
the story of Jean Valjean, who was sent to prison for nineteen years for stealing a loaf of
bread to feed his starving sister and her family. The basic assumption that Hugo and others
have made is that when an individual lacks the funds to secure those items necessary to
sustain life, he or she will become involved in crime to obtain them.1
A logical off-shoot of the theory that people subjected to impoverished living conditions are
more likely to commit crimes might be that criminal behaviour is the result of living in these
conditions for long periods but for what length of time must an individual live in
impoverished conditions before he or she becomes more likely to commit a crime, Possibly,
individuals subjected to relatively short periods of unemployment may be more likely to
commit crimes than those for whom financial difficulties are ongoing and seem hopeless.
And again, participation in criminal activity for these individuals may not be limited to cases
in which money or goods are acquired, but may also include aggressive acts such as murder.

There are three specific social structure theories. These include the following theories that
incorporate poverty and crime:
Social disorganization
Strain theory
Cultural deviance theory

In this paper, I will delve more into the Social Disorganisation theory from the broader
ecological theory.

The term social order can mean several things, It refers to the control of violence in social
life; It refers to the existence of reciprocity or mutuality in the social life; it refers to the
element of predictability in the social life; Social order refers to consistency and Social order
also entails persistence. order is itself something positive and its opposites can be understood
only concerning it; the functioning of human society requires order as a pre-condition; the
existence of social order cannot be taken for granted and the analysis of the problem of order
helps understand the nature of the disorder in its various aspects.2
Several Theorists have given theories on the existence of social order and how they can also
account for social disorder. These theories have their weaknesses, strengths and defects.
For example Interest theory, This theory has two main variants:

First theorised that men cannot achieve their objectives without the co-operation or at least
the dependability of others.
Second states that social order results from the unintended consequences of many men
separately pursuing their interests; it is not true that men discover that order is in their
collective interests and then establish it, rather they establish it unwittingly and discover later
that it is in their interests.3

Now, this theory can account for disorder and change in the following way: when
circumstances arise which are not covered by the existing rules then disorder and conflict
follow until the need for new rules is recognized.
Each of the theories on social order states a necessary, though not a sufficient condition for
the continuity of any social order, once it exists.

1
Available at: https://revisesociology.com/2016/06/04/marxist-theory-crime/ (last visited: 17th jan 2022)
2
Available at: https://www.sociologydiscussion.com/society/social-disorganization-meaning-characteristics-
and-causes/2360 ( last visited : 14th Jan 2022)

3
Ibid

3
So, When the various parts of society are properly adjusted, we have social order and a well-
organised society, but when they fail to adjust themselves to the changing conditions, the
result is social disequilibrium or disorganisation leading to social problems like crime.
There are crime theories, In particular, strain, ecology and opportunity theories try to
establish linkages between socio-economic factors of an individual/ society with criminal
behaviour/ tendencies.
The social disorganisation theory talks about this disrupted order in the society that causes
multiple social problems including crime. The focus of this theory is studying the different
reasons for the social disorder (crime being the result of that social disorder here).

Statement of Purpose
In this paper, I will look into the problem drawn out from the theory of social disorganisation
that :
Population living under poverty or are vulnerable to fall under the poverty line are more
likely to indulge in criminal activities and have higher crime rates

Where is will I will focus on the connection between social Disorganisation theory and
delinquency or crime concerning one variable of this theory: the socioeconomic status;
poverty including the example of Indian states.

Scope of the study.

This study deals only with IPC crimes that are economic goal-oriented like property theft etc.
to undertake the interlinkages between poverty. This paper aims to investigate a link between
poverty and economic oriented crimes including petty crimes.

India is a large country and many of the Indian states are virtual countries in their own
right—at least in terms of their absolute size. For instance, amongst the 15 major Indian
states, the median state had a population of about 45 million in 1991, and the state of Uttar
Pradesh alone has a population roughly the size of Brazil, the most populous country in Latin
America.4 An analysis of the evolution of poverty and social progress across India's States
should usefully complement the analysis of different rates of progress in improving living
standards across developing countries. (Dutt, 1998).

Ideally, I wanted to look solely into that research done on the linkage of people living in
poverty and crime in India however, a lacuna lies in the fact that a substantial body of
evidence for possible determinants of crime and the empirical literature has originated in
developed countries while any focus on an underdeveloped country is a rarity.
In some cases, only the most serious crimes are counted, neglecting the less serious ones,
while in some other cases there is serious undercounting to show that crime has fallen, which
could be temptation around election times.

Research Objective
 To find out whether poor living conditions tend to make people engage in crime.
 Whether there is a joint causality between poverty and crime.
 To Find out possible solutions

4
World Bank (1993) “World development report: Investing in health”, New York: Oxford University Press

4
Hypothesis
Poor living conditions tend to make people engage in crime.

Methodology
For this paper, secondary research will be conducted by way of a doctrinal approach by
textual and content analysis. Various doctrinal sources like websites, web portals, online
published journals, Research papers and studies including different textbook material on the
topic will be used for data collection.

Understanding Poverty and Crime

In 1942, two criminology researchers from the “Chicago School” of criminology, Clifford
Shaw and Henry D. McKay 5developed social disorganisation theory through their research.
The theory of social disorganisation states a person’s physical and social environments are
primarily responsible for the behavioural choices that a person makes. At the core of social
disorganisation theory, is that the environment a person is living in matters when it comes to
predicting illegal activity.6 Social disorganisation theory seeks to explain community
differences in crime rates. Shaw and McKay argued that different variables like
socioeconomic status (SES) like poverty, racial and ethnic heterogeneity, and residential
stability account for variations in social disorganisation and hence informal social control
resulting in social disorder, which in turn account for the distribution of community crime.
McKay claimed that delinquency was not caused at the individual level, but is a normal
response by normal individuals to abnormal conditions. Social disorganisation theory is
widely used as an important predictor of youth violence and crime.7
Empirical testing of Shaw and McKay’s research in other cities during the mid-20th century,
with few exceptions, focused on the relationship between SES and delinquency or crime as a
crucial test of the theory. As a whole, that research supports social disorganisation theory.8

As mentioned earlier social order requires a sufficient condition for continuity of social order,
if it is disrupted social disorganisation occurs.
Mabel, A. Elliot and Francis E. Merrill have pointed out that social disorganisation may be of
three types i.e., disorganisation of the individual, the family, and community.
In community disorganisation, they included poverty, unemployment, crime and political
corruption. Queen, Bodenhafer and Harper included in their list of social disorganisation,
unemployment, poverty, sickness, homelessness, insanity, and feeble-mindedness.9

In his study, Noveck (2007) identified the cost of crime (expected and opportunity) and gains
from crime as factors that should affect an individual’s crime decision. He states that “...
wealthier individuals will be less likely to commit a crime, as those used to a higher standard
5
Shaw, C. R. and McKay, H. D. (1942) “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas”, University of
Chicago Press
6
Mark Bond, Ed.D
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at American Public University System at American Public University
System.
7
Available at: http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/oyap/roots/volume5/
chapter04_social_disorganization.aspx ( last visited 20th jan 2022)
8
Available at: https://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-
9780190264079-e-253 ( last visited 15th jan 2022)
9
Available at: https://law.jrank.org/pages/818/Crime-Causation-Sociological-Theories-Social-disorganization-
theory.html

5
of living have more to lose if convicted of a crime and imprisoned”. Also, the available
employment opportunities play a role in the cost borne by the criminal for the crime he
commits. High unemployment levels and joblessness might significantly reduce the
opportunity cost of time he devotes to crime. Gains from crimes, particularly property crimes,
are usually driven by economic motives and expected gains from crime are associated with
the wealth of the potential victim. Bjerk (2008) writes, “While the motivation for basic
property crimes is generally purely monetary, becoming involved in violent crime may have a
defensive motivation as well. In particular, individuals may choose to act violently toward
others in their neighbourhood to gain a reputation.”
The high crime rate plagues several countries and has detrimental multidimensional effects.
Most importantly, it tends to hamper the standard of living and the overall quality of life.
Also, there is a potentially vicious cycle between crime, unemployment and poverty.
Prevalent criminal activities erode employment opportunities and are exacerbated by high
unemployment rates. This further leads to an increase in poverty rates through a lack of
accumulation of assets. On another dimension, crime can increase the cost of doing business
thereby affecting entrepreneurial activities and the overall business climate of a country. In
worst circumstances, it might even ‘drive out foreign as well as domestic investments and
decrease the availability of productive labour and skilled manpower (Dutta and Husain,
200910. Due to an absence of safety nets and a lack of resources for the poor in developing
countries, crime also has additional costs for these people. Consequently, the poor are unable
to mitigate the resulting loss of productivity which further affects their livelihood options
(UN, 2005).11 World Bank (2007) 12estimated that a 10 per cent reduction in the homicide rate
may raise the per capita income of Brazil by 0.2 - 0.8 per cent over the next five years. Thus,
crime might undermine the development goals and strategies of developing countries.
Therefore, from a macro perspective, crime has negative effects on the country and especially
affects developing countries (such as India) whose macroeconomic sectors (such as tourism)
and the critical foreign outsourcing dependent business activities that are highly sensitive to
high crime rates. It is well understood that developing countries are resource-scarce and need
to efficiently allocate them for their best utilisation. A country like India, which has to battle
high crime and widespread poverty, has to carefully channel its funds and resources towards
poverty alleviation, crime deterrence among other issues. In this regard, any intervention can
be effective only if it is based on a good understanding of crime and its determinants.
Needless to mention, research that identifies these determinants and further explores crime-
poverty linkages (among other socio-economic factors) is crucial.

The link between poverty, crime and Social Disorganization

Work by Belton M. Fleisher lead the by analysing effects of income and unemployment on
juvenile delinquency. According to him, crime rates are positively associated with
unemployment and low-income levels.13The argument that lower-income levels lead to higher
crime rates was confirmed by a study conducted by Isaac Ehrlich. 14 However, it was Gary

10
Dutta, M. and Z. Husain (2009) “Determinants of crime rates: Crime Deterrence and Growth in post-
liberalized India”, Available at http://mpra.ub.uni- muenchen.de/14478/
11
United Nations (2005) “Crime and Development in Africa” Mimeo, U. N., New York
12
World Bank report (2007) “Crime, Violence and Economic Development in Brazil: Elements for Effective Public
Policy”.
13
Fleisher, B. M. (1963) “The Effect of Unemployment on Juvenile Delinquency”, Journal of Political Economy,
Fleisher, B. M. (1966) “The Effect of Income on Delinquency”, American Economic Review,
14
Ehrlich, I. (1973) “Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation”, Journal of
Political Economy.

6
Becker’s path-breaking work that viewed criminals, not as poverty-stricken oppressed groups
but rational economic agents. Like any other person, the potential criminal weighs costs/risks
and benefits when deciding whether or not to commit a crime. He, however, wrote that “some
individuals become criminals because of the financial and other rewards from crime
compared to legal work, taking account of the likelihood of apprehension and conviction, and
the severity of punishment” 15
Work by Ehrlich and Becker gave birth to the theory of deterrence which argues that
potential criminals weigh both the possibility of detection and conviction including the
resulting sanction, monetary and non-monetary disorganization on youth violence. 16That is,
social disorganization in conjunction with poverty results in higher rates of youth violence
than either social disorganization or poverty alone do. No mediating processes are proposed
in this second explanation. The research highlighted below offers partial support for both
propositions and indicates that researchers and practitioners who are interested in the effects
of social disorganization on crime should also consider the importance of economic
deprivation.17

Several studies have supported the idea that economic deprivation may be an important
influence on social disorganisation, which, in turn, as the previous research has indicated, is
an important influence on youth violence. This proposes that economic deprivation could
lead to social disorganization, which in turn leads to violence and crime.

Shaw and McKay viewed the economic well-being of a community as a major determinant of
variation in rates of delinquency. In particular, poor communities lack adequate resources to
defend their interests collectively. Kornhauser summarizes this position as follows:

In poor communities, institutions lack adequate money and knowledge. From the family to
the community at large, money and skills for the effective performance of allotted functions
are deficient or absent. Also, the intermediate structures created in communities with
populations that are more affluent and knowledgeable fail to emerge in the less resourceful
slum. Without intermediate structures, community-wide relations are weak or cannot become
established.18
Shaw and McKay consistently found strong negative associations between several different
indicators of neighbourhood socioeconomic status and delinquency rates. However, several
studies argued that, while crime rates are higher in lower socio-economic areas, this
relationship is spurious and disappears when other area characteristics are simultaneously
considered19. For example, delinquency rates reflected the level of anomie or integration in a
given area and not the economic status of the area. 20 Other researchers, in contrast, have
argued that economic deprivation is a strong predictor of youth violence, independent of
other influences (Baron, Bellair, Roscigno and Mcnulty, and Schissel ). Social
disorganization researchers, in contrast to both of the above views, argue that the relationship

15
Becker, G.“Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach”, Journal of Political Economy,
16
McGraw-Hill, New York, “Crime, Punishment, and the Market for Offenses”, Journal of Economic
Perspectives.

17
On the Relation between Education and Crime’, in F. T. Juster (ed.) Education, Income and Human Behavior.
18
Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency: An appraisal of Analytic Models. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
19
Lander B. (1954). Towards an Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Columbia University Press.,
20
Bordua, D.J. (l958). Juvenile Delinquency and Anomie: An Attempt at Replication.

7
between economic deprivation and youth violence is more complex, and could be better
understood if the concept of social disorganization is integrated with economic deprivation.21

The research by Smith and Jarjoura, Warner and Pierce and Warner and Roundtree, in
contrast to the above, all support the idea that poverty may moderate the relationship between
social disorganization and crime. That is, social disorganization may lead to crime, but the
effects are even more pronounced when social disorganization occurs within the context of
high levels of poverty.

Smith and Jarjoura examine the relationship between neighbourhood characteristics and rates
of violent crime and burglary. They argue that Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization
theory provides a meaningful point of departure for examining the uneven distribution of
criminal victimisation across social units. Measures of three central theoretical elements in
Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization perspective (poverty, residential mobility, and
racial heterogeneity) and variables from the subculture of violence, social control, and
opportunity perspectives are included in this research. The authors use data from 11,419
individuals in 57 US neighbourhoods from three Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas to
test their hypotheses. The results indicate that the core components of Shaw and McKay’s
theory are important in explaining neighbourhood victimisation rates, although their
influence is more conditional than direct and varies by type of crime. Specifically, an
interaction between the percentage of low-income households and residential mobility is a
significant predictor of violent crime. That is, “the influence of residential mobility on violent
crime rates varies with the poverty level of an area. Communities that are characterised by
rapid population turnover and high levels of poverty have significantly higher violent crime
rates than mobile areas that are more affluent, or poor areas that are characterised by more
stable populations.” These results hold, regardless of the level of urbanisation, and are found
in each of the three Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas for which the authors examined
data. In the case of burglary, in contrast to violent crime, the interaction terms were not
significant.22

Warner and Pierce examine social disorganization theory using calls to the police as a
measure of crime. Data were gathered from 60 Boston neighbourhoods in 1980. The authors
argue that data based on complainant reports of crime, rather than official police reports,
allow for the investigation of differences in findings based on victimisation data and official
crime data. The rates of assault, robbery and burglary are regressed on poverty, residential
mobility, racial heterogeneity, family disruption, and structural density. Interaction terms for
poverty and heterogeneity, poverty, and mobility, and mobility and heterogeneity are also
explored. The authors find that each of the social disorganization variables predicted crime
rates, with poverty being the strongest and most consistent predictor. Interaction terms
constructed between poverty and racial heterogeneity and poverty and residential mobility
were also fairly stable predictors of crime. 23 Similarly to Smith and Jarjoura, the results
indicate that poverty strengthens the effects of social disorganization on crime.

Warner and Roundtree employ a sample of 100 Seattle census tracts and investigate the
influence of poverty, racial heterogeneity, residential stability, and interaction terms on

21
Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain, street youth and crime: A test of Agnew’s revised theory, Bellair, P. E., V.J.
Roscigno and T.L. Mcnulty. (2003). Linking local labour market opportunity to violent adolescent delinquency.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.
22
Supra 7
23
Ibid

8
assault and burglary. Consistent with the results of Smith and Jarjoura and Warner and
Pierce, they find that an interaction term between poverty and residential stability
significantly predicts both dependent measures.24

The studies cited in this section indicate that economic deprivation is an important factor to
consider when examining the influence of social disorganization on crime. Also, the
influence of social disorganization on crime may be more pronounced in poorer areas and
attenuated in more affluent areas.

Crime and linkages with socioeconomic indicator Poverty concerning

India.
According to Fesseha Gebremikael (2003), “crime rate is high in some low-income and
minority populated rural areas. Poverty is widespread in communities that due to low income
are living in public housing and where overpopulation is an issue”.
Fafchamps and Minten (2002) in a study focussing on Madagascar state that “burglaries and
crop theft are expected to increase with poverty as people turn to crime to mitigate the effect
of the shock on their lives”.25

This matches perfectly with a lot of states of India. Certain crimes, such as stealing food to
feed himself or his dependent, can be considered as a frantic or distressed response to poverty
(or hunger as poverty is sometimes called in its extreme form). These crimes are almost
always likely to rise with poverty. Thus, both poverty and income inequality are considered
to be reasonable proxies of resource deprivation.

Figure 1. % of people below the poverty line.

24
Warner, B. D., & Rountree, P. (1997). Local social ties in a community and crime model: Questioning the
systemic nature of informal control.
25
Fafchamps, M. and B. Minten (2002) “Crime and Poverty: Evidence from a Natural Experiment”, CSAE
Working Paper Series 23

9
 Figure 2
Income Inequality

States such as Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have more than a quarter of
their population below the poverty line (BPL) while Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and
Himachal Pradesh are the best performers in this context. Then some States have wide gaps
between rural and urban BPL populations. This includes Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh,
Karnataka, Rajasthan and West Bengal. Crime is bound to increase when the difference
between the have’s and have not’s magnifies. Certain crimes are motivated by economic
considerations. According to Kelley “In the economic theory of crime, areas of high
inequality place poor individuals who have low returns from market activity next to high-
income individuals who have goods worth taking, thereby increasing the returns to the time
allocated to criminal activity”26 and such motivations may be created by a sense of
frustration, or an “envy effect”. Worsening income gaps can harm genuine and legal income-
generating opportunities and thereby carries with itself the possibility of a rise in crime. Such
criminal activities are not only carried out by (and result in) potential criminals but also
potential victims that have material goods worth seizing (Fleisher27,
Ehrlich28, Chiu and Madden29, Burdett and Mortensen 30, Imrohoroglu et al31., Fajnzylber et
al32., Juhn, Murphy and Pierce33and Pratt and Godsey34).

26
Kelly, M. (2000) “Inequality and Crime”, Review of Economics and Statistics.
27
Supra 13
28
Supra 14
29
Chiu, W. H. and P. Madden (1998) “Burglary and Income Inequality”, Journal of Public Economics.
30
Burdett, K. and D. T. Mortensen (1998) “Wage Differential, Employer Size, and Unemployment”,
International Economic Review
31
Imrohoroglu, A., A. Merlo and P. Rupert (2000) “On the Political Economy of Income Redistribution and
Crime”, International Economic Review.
32
Fajnzylber, P., D. Lederman and N. Loayza (2002) “What Causes Violent Crime?” European Economic Review.
33
Juhn, C., K. Murphy and B. Pierce (1993) “Wage Inequality and the Rise in Returns to
Skill”, Journal of Political Economy.
34
Pratt, T. C. and T. W. Godsey (2003) “Social support, inequality, and homicide: A cross-national test of an
integrated theoretical model”, Criminology.

10
However, there is a growing consensus that resource deprivation is generally an underlying
cause of violent crime (Land, McCall & Cohen35).

Figure 3: Economic oriented crimes: Property crime record of states 2018-2020.

Fajnzylber, Lederman and Loayza show that “crime rates (homicide and robbery) and
inequality are positively correlated within countries and this correlation reflects causation
from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for another crime determinant”. 36Social
disorganisation theory (Shaw and McKay), highlights that a breakdown of social control
machinery can lead to higher crime rates. This collapse can be attributed to factors such as
poverty, racial heterogeneity, mobility, social instability. However, in most cases, inequality
is associated with crime because it is linked to poverty. This applies to the Indian context as
well.

The data shown in Figures 1,2 & 3 are of income inequality, the population living below the
poverty line and crime rate respectively from the year 2018-2020 (latest available). The same
data but from the year 2004-2005 was used in the empirical study published in Atlantic
review of economics 2014, estimating the link between crime and poverty in Indian states.
The study was done using different variables including income inequality, poverty and crime
(property-related crimes) using different models.
The results of that study suggested that there is a positive relationship between crime and
poverty.
Extract from the study:
“The positive coefficient of poverty variable confirms the economic theory of crime that
poverty leads to more criminal activities. This result is also in line with Fafchamps and
Minten’s (2002) econometric result that poverty is associated with a rising in property-related
crime. They took into account the number of people below the poverty line in Madagascar
35
Land, K. C., P. L. McCall and L. E. Cohen “Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are There Any Invariance’s
Across Time and Space?” The American Journal of Sociology.
36
Supra 32.

11
rather than the more challenging relation with chronic poverty, i.e., extremely poor people
suffering from hunger. Property crime, in line with their findings, is a consumption
smoothing strategy that helps such poor people (not the extremely poor) to avoid their already
low standards of living falling further down. This is also referred to as the ‘vulnerability’ of
the poor.
The significant positive relationship between poverty and crime (total property crimes and
robbery) rejects both opportunity and returns-to-crime theories while confirming the relative
deprivation theory of crime. An explanation for this in the Indian context could be the
possible failure of poverty reduction programmes. However, this does not imply that such
schemes implemented by governments are redundant but it means that could rather be
misdirected. Rather than shifting the relative positions of those in the lower class who are
most prone to commit crimes (such as the young, unemployed, unskilled and uneducated
males), certain other groups have been targeted, principally distressed women with children,
handicapped, malnourished children and the elderly. Such a failure to identify the real target
group by State-sponsored social and economic schemes has been suggested before by
DeFronzo (1983) and Plotnick and Smeeding (1979). Allen (1996) puts forth
the argument that “a change in relative positions resulting from social forces perceived to be
unjustified may result in increased criminal behaviour by the disadvantaged groups.”
What was expected was a positive association between income inequality and crime (positive
INEQ variable) simply because as the number of poor people increases relative to the rich,
their opportunity cost to commit crime comes down. In other words, they have relatively
more to gain than a few others who lose from crime. The regression results fit into this line of
reasoning but conflict with the findings of Hsieh and Pugh (1993), Kelly (2000) and Brush
(2007). The only exception to this was the negative coefficient with robbery but it was
statistically insignificant. EGROW representing economic growth (per capita income of the
States) convincingly remains a positive determinant of property-related crime in India. This
result is in perfect accordance with that of Entorf and Spengler (2000). There are two possible
explanations for this relationship. First, wealth measured by per capita income incorporates
both legal and illegal income opportunities reveals the growth of the black market also since
income figures do not exclude gains to criminals from selling stolen goods or cars. Second,
rising incomes in light of high inequality and poverty can result in a rising in property crimes,
robberies in particular.”37

Then in another research To find out how does financial development affect crime? It was
observed that income inequality is one of the main channels through which financial
development affects crime. It is observed that it is in the presence of high-income inequality,
that states have witnessed an increase in crime rates. An important implication of the study is
that financial development needs to be accompanied by other policies that reduce inequality
and prioritise inclusivity, so that as income inequality falls, the benefits of financial
development may be realized.

A joint causality has been addressed by researchers in numerous studies mainly focussing on
crime deterrence variables such as expenditure on the police force or several police officers.
Activities by poor people could be more likely criminalised because they lack the power to
influence criminal law compared to the wealthy people who can lobby to avoid their acts
being criminalised. In this scenario, inevitably there will be a high correlation between
poverty and crime. If the criminal justice system is subject to such manipulation (which could

37
Ashish Bharadwaj, Is poverty the mother of crime? Empirical evidence of the impact of socioeconomic factors
on crime in India, Atlantic Review of Economics – 1st Volume – 2014.

12
be a result of rampant corruption and red-tape) then the poor will more likely get convicted
than the wealthy for the same underlying act. In this study,

Conclusion
The studies reviewed above indicate that social disorganization is an important predictor of
crime and that social disorganization has an impact on crime by affecting several mediating
processes that facilitate crime. The findings also indicate the linkages between economic
deprivation and social disorganization when attempting to explain crime. In attempting to
attenuate crimes, several policy implications are suggested by social disorganization theory.
However, even though the paper establishes a link between poverty and crime, it does not
prove that the impoverished will commit crimes given the necessity and the opportunity.
Combining several factors will determine the true motive of criminals and not just poverty is
the determining factor. Further, The intuitive assumption that poverty causes crime might
also suggest that the only criminal acts correlated with poverty would be those resulting in
increased money or goods. Yet this is not the case.
In direct contrast to some views that fighting poverty, inequality and social disorganization
does not help reduce crime, the findings indicate that property crime increases with the
incidence of absolute poverty and that income distribution and social structure (social
disorganisation theory) have an impact on property crime activity.
These findings also indicate that high growth and employment policies, per se, cannot reduce
property crimes it only increases income inequality in turn, as established, increases crime.
These policies only if combined with pulling poor people above the poverty line, raising their
standard of living and social progress can abate crime. Saying that the alternative (political)
view of fighting crime with effective poverty alleviation programmes along with strong
criminal justice actions is suggested. Also enhancing human capital accumulation is another
approach to deal with this problem first by strengthening the education system and second
generating employment neither of them alone can give good results. An educated population
or even uneducated labour with nowhere to go creates unemployment which is an indicator of
poverty. In light of unemployment, it should be taken into account that wages can act as a
better determinant than unemployment. Further, absolute poverty measure which focuses
poor but the impact of relative poverty with a focus on vulnerable chronically poor deserves
more research that is those living below a liveable income, not of that income that is just bare
minimum for surviving.

Bibliography

Shaw, C. R. and McKay, H. D. (1942) “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas”, University
of
Chicago Press

13
Mark Bond, Ed.D
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at American Public University System at American
Public University System.

Dutta, M. and Z. Husain (2009) “Determinants of crime rates: Crime Deterrence and Growth
in post-liberalized India”.

Ashish Bharadwaj, Is poverty the mother of crime? Empirical evidence of the impact of
socioeconomic factors on crime in India, Atlantic Review of Economics – 1st Volume –
2014.

United Nations (2005) “Crime and Development in Africa” Mimeo, U. N., New York

World Bank report (2007) “Crime, Violence and Economic Development in Brazil: Elements
for Effective Public Policy”.

Fleisher, B. M. (1963) “The Effect of Unemployment on Juvenile Delinquency”, Journal of

Political Economy

Fleisher, B. M. (1966) “The Effect of Income on Delinquency”, American Economic Review

Ehrlich, I. (1973) “Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical

Investigation”, Journal of Political Economy.

Becker, G.“Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach”, Journal of Political Economy

McGraw-Hill, New York, “Crime, Punishment, and the Market for Offenses”, Journal of
Economic Perspectives.

On the Relation between Education and Crime’, in F. T. Juster (ed.) Education, Income and
Human Behavior.

Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency: An appraisal of Analytic Models.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lander B. (1954). Towards an Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Columbia

University Press.,

Bordua, D.J. (l958). Juvenile Delinquency and Anomie: An Attempt at Replication.

Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain, street youth and crime: A test of Agnew’s revised
theory.

Bellair, P. E., V.J. Roscigno and T.L. Mcnulty. (2003). Linking local labour market
opportunity to violent adolescent delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency.

Warner, B. D., & Rountree, P. (1997). Local social ties in a community and crime model:
Questioning the systemic nature of informal control.

14
Fafchamps, M. and B. Minten (2002) “Crime and Poverty: Evidence from a Natural
Experiment”, CSAE Working Paper Series 23

Kelly, M. (2000) “Inequality and Crime”, Review of Economics and Statistics.

Chiu, W. H. and P. Madden (1998) “Burglary and Income Inequality”, Journal of Public
Economics.

Burdett, K. and D. T. Mortensen (1998) “Wage Differential, Employer Size, and

Unemployment”.
International Economic Review

Imrohoroglu, A., A. Merlo and P. Rupert (2000) “On the Political Economy of Income
Redistribution and Crime”, International Economic Review.

Fajnzylber, P., D. Lederman and N. Loayza (2002) “What Causes Violent Crime?” European
Economic Review.

Juhn, C., K. Murphy and B. Pierce (1993) “Wage Inequality and the Rise in Returns to
Skill”, Journal of Political Economy.

Pratt, T. C. and T. W. Godsey (2003) “Social support, inequality, and homicide: A cross-
national test of an integrated theoretical model”, Criminology.

Land, K. C., P. L. McCall and L. E. Cohen “Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are
There Any Invariance’s Across Time and Space?” The American Journal of Sociology.

Karl Thompson, The Marxist Perspective on Crime, Revisisesociology.com, 4th June 2016.

15