White collar crime and the definitional quagmire: A provisional solution

Abstract

More than virtually any other realm of criminological scholarship, white collar crime study is plagued by unresolved definitional, conceptual, and typological issues. The present confused and contradictory invocations of the core terminology pertaining to white collar crime introduce a significant element of incoherence into the field. In this paper the seminal origins of the concept of white collar crime, in the work of E. A. Ross and E. H. Sutherland, are explored. The principal elements of subsequent efforts to define white collar crime are identified. It is claimed that a war of white collar criminologists' has emerged, principally pitting critical white collar criminologists against positivist white collar criminologists. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the principal constituencies in this definitional war are examined. The paper concludes with the argument that the concept of white collar crime is defined on three different levels—presentational, typological, and operational —and that any definition of white collar crime is meaningful only in relation to its stated purpose.