Labor Stratification and Violent Crime

Abstract

T7his paper uses dual labor market theory to examine the relationships between the structure of labor in census tracts, economic indicators, and violent crime. It tests the thesis that relationships between poverty, income inequality, and violent crime are affected by the distribution of workers into the primary and secondary sectors of the labor market. The results indicate that, when three measures of the conditions of employment are controlled, the association between the poverty rate and the overall violent crime index is reduced, and that the relationship between income inequality and violent crime rates is limited to murder rates. The implications of these results for future research on social economy and violent crime are discussed. The history of speculation and research concerning poverty as a crimogenic factor (Bonger 1916; J. Cohen 1957; Merton 1949; Miller 1958) is long and notably inconsistent. For collectivities such as states, cities, and census tracts, research results consistently show a positive relationship between crime rates and levels of poverty, although the strength of this relationship varies (e.g., Boggs 1965; Chilton 1964; Jarvis & Messinger 1974; Loftin 1980; McCarthy, Galle & Zimmem 1975; Schuessler 1962). For individuals, the findings are much less consistent. In his review of the empirical literature, Braithwaite (1981) concluded that a negative relationship between social class and criminal involvement has been demonstrated, but other reviews (e.g., Tittle, Villemez & Smith 1978, 1982) report no relationship between social class and crime. Brownfield (1986) found that the strength of the association between social class and violent crime *1 thank members of the Deviance and Social Control seminar at the University of Washington, George Bridges, Brian Galvin, Avery Guest, Elise Lake, James McCann, and especially Herbert Costner for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Charles Freeman, David Hachen, and Adrian Raftery for helpful suggestions and direction during the course of this project. Direct correspondence to the author, Department of Sociology DK 40, University of Washington,.Seattle, WA 98195. O The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, December 1989, 68(2):489-512