Base on these PDF files: My first question is below:The study by Younas focuses on 120 developing nations over a period of time from 1976-2008. Paying meticulous attention to the statistical analysis of his panel data, his findings seem consistent regarding this interplay of terrorism, globalization and economic growth. I would like you to state in your own words what you think is his primary finding. What other research finding did you find interesting and explain why it struck you as interesting. Finally, discuss the implications of the U-shaped relationship between globalization and growth in terms of how developing nations might better manage globalization to maximize its effect on both terrorism and growth.My second question is below:The article by Gregg Barak exposes us to three crime and crime control models but the question remains whether these models, alone or in some combined form, help us account not only for crime in the global age but how nations can counter or manage crime. Given your understanding of the article, discuss and explain which model or combination of models appears most valid to you. What do you see as the greatest threat from crime in our globalized world and how best do you think it should be controlled?
crime_and_control_in_the_age_of_globalization_gregg_barak.pdf

does_globalization_mitigate_the_adverse_effects_of_terrorism_on_growth_javed_younas.pdf

walking_through_barak.pdf

walking_through_younas.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Critical Criminology 10: 57–72, 2001.
© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
57
CRIME AND CRIME CONTROL IN AN AGE OF
GLOBALIZATION: A THEORETICAL DISSECTION
GREGG BARAK
Eastern Michigan University
Accepted 10 July 2001
Abstract. This article examines the impact of globalization on both crime and crime control
at the national and global levels. To make conceptual sense out of the transforming nature
of these activities at the turn of the 21st century, a threefold analysis is presented: (1) an
overview of the three traditional developmental models of crime and crime control – modernization, world system, and opportunity; (2) a characterization of crime and crime control in
relationship to the more recently emerging models of globalization; and (3) a discussion of the
implications of the dialectical relations between the models of development and the models of
globalization. Assessments of the models and other provisional conclusions are drawn based
on a survey of both crime and crime control in 15 developed, developing, and post-traditional
nation-states.
Introduction
Globalization refers to the process of growing interdependency among events,
people, and governments around the world that are increasingly connected
through a worldwide political economy and an expanding communications,
transportation, and computer network. In today’s world of laissez-faire globalization, free trade and unregulated markets rule supreme. Largely under the
aegis of the United States, these forces and relations of production have come
to represent a hegemonic regime over the prevailing economic and political
spheres of nation-states around the globe. As characterized by Weiss (2000:
1):
The Soviet menace has been vanquished. China has turned away from
Communism as an economic doctrine. Third World resistance groups
are in disarray and retreat, western European social democracies (with
the bold exception of Denmark and The Netherlands) are shrinking their
welfare states, and governments in Latin America, the former Soviet
bloc countries, and much of Asia are busy deregulating, downsizing,
privatizing, contracting out, reducing taxes, and cutting social spending.
On the cultural front, people throughout the world are emulating the
voracious consumerism of Americans. The ascendance of capitalist
58
GREGG BARAK
values and social standards among former peasants, apparatchiks, and
state industrial workers is helping to finish off the old social orders in
China, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
With globalization has come the polarization of wealth and income, as
well as the intensification of disease, poverty, and hunger – both within
and between rich and poor countries. Developmental studies of the United
Nations reveal that the upper fifth of those living in high-income countries
account for 86% of all the world’s private expenditures on consumption. At
the same time, tens of millions of people succumb annually to famine and
preventable diseases. For hundreds of millions of others, mostly in developing
but also in developed countries, “life is a daily preoccupation with obtaining
safe water, rudimentary health care, basic education, and sufficient nutrition”
(Weiss 2000: 2).
From the perspectives of both crime and crime control, critical criminologists at the turn of the century are trying to understand the comparative
effects that development, globalization, and increasing inequalities are having
on the phenomena that we study. In an effort to shed some light on this
understanding, this discussion provides a conceptual overview of the theories
of modernization, opportunity, and world system. The article assesses their
strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities for integration. It develops an understanding of globalization, which has important implications for both transnational crime and as context for local factors that significantly shape crime and
crime control policies.
This article draws on a recent global survey of 15 nation-states (Barak
2000) to frame and contextualize important issues, as well as draw some
provisional conclusions about crime and crime control in an age of globalization. For each of these nation-states, the researchers agreed to present
(1) quantitative data on the trends and rates of victimization; (2) qualitative
data on the historical evolution of crime and social control, incorporating
a profile of the changing cultural styles of living and consuming; (3) a
discussion on the general causes and responses to crime, including the
circumstances surrounding legal and policy developments; and (4) a speculative discussion on future crime and crime control projections (Barak 2000).
Countries were placed into one of three nation-state classifications based
on (1) the social, political, and economic development/integration into the
20th century’s multinational corporatism and (2) the emerging 21st century’s
lifestyle of consumerism (Waters 1995). These three classifications are:
• Developed Nation-States: United States, Germany, United Kingdom,
New Zealand, Taiwan, The Netherlands
• Post-traditional Nation-States: Ghana, Nigeria, Navajo Nation
• Developing Nation-States: Brazil, Poland, Russia, Iran, China, India
GLOBALIZATION OF CRIME CONTROL
59
Theoretical Orientations to Crime and Crime Control
In the field of comparative criminology, there are essentially three macro
perspectives on the development of crime and crime control: modernization,
world system, and opportunity. The models of modernization are based on the
ideas of Emile Durkheim, the models of world system are based on the ideas
of Karl Marx, and the models of opportunity are derivative of 18th century
classical rationalism and 20th century evolutionary ecology.
Each of these models incorporates various assumptions, concepts, and
relationships about law, crime, and social change; and each model proffers
a different explanation for the variation in crime and crime control. The
modernization explanations argue that social changes such as urbanization
and industrialization are associated with changes in crime and victimization
patterns. According to these models, the changes in crime and crime control
are primarily the products of the internal influences of development, regardless of time and place. World system explanations argue that contemporary
developing nations are dependent on, and to varying degrees exploited by,
already developed nations. Hence, the changes in crime and crime control in
any country, regardless of its developmental status, are primarily the products
of external influences in relationship to a changing political economy. Opportunity explanations argue that both crime and crime control reflect a mixture
of developing material resources and environments. Thus, changes in the
patterns of crime and victimization, over time, are primarily the products of
interacting internal and external factors.
Typically, these three models are used to explain cross-national differences
in crime rates such as homicide and theft, and are viewed as alternative or as
competing models. It makes more sense, however, to view them as overlapping and complementary. The modernization and opportunity approaches are
both “evolutionary, focus on processes of adaptation, and emphasize industrialization, urbanization, cultural diversity and population growth,” while the
opportunity and world system approaches are more “holistic, materialistic,
relational, and emphasize hierarchical or dominance relations” (Neuman and
Berger 1988: 288). It might also be that the ultimate value of these theories,
especially in the context of globalization, may turn out to reside in some kind
of integration of the various models.
Modernization Theory
Based on the Durkheimian (1964) notions of “the division of labor in society,”
“mechanical/organic solidarity,” “anomie,” and “cultural lag,” modernization
theorists have contended that it is the speed rather than the level of development which is important for understanding the patterns or variations in crime
60
GREGG BARAK
and crime control. Rapid change intensifies conflicts and throws society into
a temporary state of disequilibrium where deviance and crime tend to expand
as values clash regarding appropriate norms. Advocates of this theoretical
perspective explain cross-national variation “in terms of industrialization,
urbanization, and the resultant social disorganization and anomie” brought
on by modernization (Neapolitan 1997: 68). Shelley (1981) posited that all
nations experience the same developmental stages and corresponding changes
in their crime patterns. These models maintain that the developing nations
of the world should be viewed as undergoing essentially the same kind of
evolution in crime and crime control that contemporary developed nations
experienced in the 19th century or earlier. Hence, modernists argue that the
up and down trends in crime and crime control should be more or less the
same for all nations as they adapt to similar levels of rapid development.
Modernization theory regards urbanization and industrialization as
explaining more about the patterns of property and violent crime from
one nation to the next than do the cultural characteristics, politics, or
local histories, for example. The processes of modernization are viewed
as disrupting traditional family and community patterns of organization as
peasants become workers and as societies transform from agricultural to
industrial and service-oriented economies. During these transitional stages of
development, a breakdown of norms occurs where new beliefs and values are
substituted for older ones. In the process, both society’s formal (legalistic) and
informal (customary) social controls are weakened. Crime increases because
of these changes in community relations.
In discussions of crime (and deviance) control, modernists employ
rather narrow conceptions. For example, crimes are those acts subject to
“repressive” sanctions (criminal law) and not to “restitutive” sanctions (civil
law). These models of modernization incorporate a value-neutral perspective,
as criminal law is regarded as embodying societal consensus and criminality
is equated with official crime rates. These approaches do not examine how
political processes affect crime rates. Although relatively apolitical, these
approaches adopt pluralist theories of the state. Finally, these models view
both individual and collective acts of crime and violence as increasing when
institutions (especially political ones like the state) lag behind the pace of
modernization or when relative deprivation is experienced by enough people
who see large gaps between what they and what others possess and consume.
Nonetheless, modernists consider the relations of inequality as of secondary
importance since they argue that equality is increasing as nations develop
economically, technologically, and otherwise.
GLOBALIZATION OF CRIME CONTROL
61
World System Theory
In contrast to modernization theory, world system theory views inequality as
a primary cause in the production of crime and crime control. World system
or dependency perspectives maintain that inequality increases as the capitalist
mode of production expands and as developed nations penetrate developing
nations. Utilizing Marxian perspectives on conflict and world order, which
argue that crime and crime control are functions of expanding or contracting
inequality, world system theory emphasizes the importance of the economic
over non-economic factors.
For example, world system theory contends that the dependence of
developing nations on developed nations is fundamental to the trends in
crime and crime control. World system theories further claim that nations
do not move along a linear track toward development, with dependence
and underdevelopment being temporary states. Instead, exploitation results
in uneven development both within and across nations, creating inequalities that were not present when the developed nations modernized. World
system theory argues further that what is important are the linkages between
the internal processes of dependency and the external relations of the
global economic order. As such, the main causal variables of world system
theory are “the global economy and uneven expansion of the capitalist
mode of production, the international system of states, class structure and
conflict, economic inequality, the class nature of the state, and the spread
of new ideologies” (Neuman and Berger 1988: 284). What is at the heart
of these analyses of crime, crime control, and the world system are the
interrelations or inequalities among the various social formations that are
used as sites for examining structures and processes within and between
nations.
According to Wallerstein (1974), world system theory begins with an
account of colonialism and its consequences for the uneven development
of nations, and then examines the advancement of global capitalism in relation to the worldwide political-economic system of core, semi-periphery, and
periphery nations. Core nations refer to the developed nations of the world,
characterized by highly industrialized and prosperous formations where
capitalist social relations are most elevated. Nations of the periphery or of the
Third World, are the least developed and the most economically dependent
formations, often providing a source of inexpensive natural resources for core
nations. Recently emancipated from the colonial domination of core states,
these dependent formations are the least industrialized, have the lowest standards of living, and are often the locales of civil war, military dictatorships,
protest, and rebellion. Semi-periphery nations are partially industrialized and
developed. These nations provide investment outlets for the core states and
62
GREGG BARAK
often act as political and economic “buffers” between nations of the core and
periphery.
The consequences of the relations and social formations of capitalist
development are that core nations typically exploit the periphery and semiperiphery nations to differing degrees. One significant result of the relationship between the nations of a global economy has been that the surplus or
profit created by development in the periphery (and to a lesser extent in the
semi-periphery) is extracted by domestic and international elite groups, acting
legally and extra-legally. The experiences of today’s developing countries
appears to be unlike the experiences of the already developed nations, where
the money made had remained internal, circulating and propelling the local
economies and even reducing inequality for a period of time.
In discussions of crime (and deviance) control, world system theorists are
not exclusively guided by criminal and legal considerations. They prefer to
draw broader definitions of crime based on socio-political concepts grounded
in relations of production and power as well as social injuries and harms.
Thus, crimes may also include acts committed by corporations and states
that may or may not fall within the narrow confines of the criminal law,
such as those acts that include human rights violations, global treaties, and
universal covenants (Schwendinger and Schwendinger 1970; Barak 1990).
In this context, world system theory analyzes the state, law, and crime in
terms of both political and class struggle and in terms of the developing
modes of capitalist production. Using this approach, crime and crime control
are viewed as products of inequality, poverty, and political oppression that
accompany development based on exploitation and dependency (Humphries
and Greenberg 1981; Platt and Takagi 1981). In the context of capitalist development and class struggle, the various forms and expressions of crime itself
are regarded as structural adaptations, where there are essentially two kinds of
crime happening (Quinney 1977). First, there are the “crimes of domination
or repression” methodically committed by capitalist/governing classes and
their agents. Second, there are the “crimes of accommodation,” “crimes of
interpersonal violence,” and “crimes of resistance/rebellion” committed by
working and subordinate classes, and referred to in their totality as “crimes
of survival.”
Examples of the crimes of domination or repression encompass those acts
which systematically injure or harm consumers, workers, and the general
public, including offenses like antitrust violations, worker-related illnesses
and deaths, environmental pollution, organized corruption, abuses of law
enforcement, and so forth. Examples of the crimes of survival include property crimes of theft and illegal entrepreneurial activities involving drug sales,
gambling, and prostitution; violent crimes like murder, assault, rape, and
GLOBALIZATION OF CRIME CONTROL
63
domestic violence; and offenses like political organizing, protests, riots, and
strikes. When comparing Quinney’s classification of crimes in the context
of developing political economies, the former acts can be viewed generally
as the product of group and organizational activities engaged in on behalf
of the direct or indirect accumulation of capital, while the latter acts can
be viewed generally as the product of isolated and individual incidents of
predation (although there are the less common social and collective acts of
resistance and rebellion). Of course, organized criminal activities, especially
those involving the distribution of contraband across nation-states, cut across
all forms of criminality.
Opportunity Theory
A third perspective on cross-national crime and crime control blends elements
of the ecological theories of crime and social change – a legacy of the
Chicago School of the 1920s and 1930s. This approach emphasizes the
interrelations between the physical environment, population groupings, and
opportunity theory which maintains that “crime occurs in spatially and
temporally organized social contexts that provide ‘favorable’ environmental
conditions for the execution of criminal acts” (Neuman and Berger 1988:
287–288). Opportunity theory borrows from differential opportunities theory
and routine activities theory (Cohen and Felson 1979) which argue that crime
is a function of rational behavioral options. It also incorporates ideas from
civilization theory (Elias 1982), which argues that there are fewer positive
supports for violence as populations grow in density and wealth. Thus, opportunity models predict increasing levels of property crime and declining levels
of personal crime. Increased criminality is associated with all groups and
classes of people, including women and juveniles, especially in the latter
stages of capitalist development when suitable targets and a surplus of goods
are increasingly vulnerable and subject to socio-economic activities that are
widely dispersed and less protected from capable guardians.
The opportunity model argues that the variation in cross-national crime
and crime control is the product of a mixture of growing resources and
environments, which provide increased opportunities for unsanctioned criminal and deviant behavior. These acts will increase “when evolutionary
processes create a societal surplus which expands the quantity of material
goods available to be stolen” (Neuman and Berger 1988: 288). At the same
time, when “population mobility and cultural diversity increase, the protection and social control mechanisms provided by large, stationary kinship
groups” lose their effectiveness in suppressing crime (Neuman and Berger
1988: 288).
64
GREGG BARAK
In discussions of crime (and deviance) control, opportunity theorists
take a managerial or administrative approach. Their emphasis is on the
inter-organizational environments, technology, rationalization, communication systems, and centrali …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment