Essay on Economic Theory of Crime

Some scholars using social-structural approach have explained crime in terms of the economic structure of society. They focus on the impact of economic conditions on criminal behaviour.

This explanation holds that a criminal is a product of the economic environment which provides him his ideals and his goals. It was the Italian scholar Fornasari who talked of the relationship between crime and poverty in 1894.

He maintained that 60 per cent of the population of Italy was poor, and of the total crimes in Italy, 85 per cent to 90 per cent criminals belong to this section of the poor. Economic system thus provides ‘climate of motivation for criminal behaviour.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In 1916, a Dutch scholar Bonger also emphasised relationship between crime and the capitalistic economic structure. In a capitalistic system man concentrates only on himself and this leads to selfishness.

Man is interested only in producing for himself, especially in producing a surplus which he can exchange for profit. He is not interested in the needs of others. Capitalism, thus, breeds social irresponsibility and leads to crime.

A British criminologist Cyril Burt (The Young Delinquent, 1925), analyzing juvenile delinquency, found that 19 per cent juvenile delinquents belonged to extremely poor families and 37 per cent to poor families. He concluded that though poverty was an important factor in crime, yet it was not the only factor.

In 1915, William Healy and Augusta Bronner (Delinquents and Criminals: Their Making and Unmaking, 1926) studied 675 juvenile delinquents and found that 5 per cent belonged to the destitute class, 22 per cent to the poor class, 35 per cent to the normal class, 34 per cent to the comfort class, and 4 per cent to the luxury class.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Thus, since 73 per cent delinquents belonged to classes which were economically normal or well-off, poverty cannot be considered to be a very important factor in delinquency.

While Bonger used facilitating approach, Karl Marx used deterministic approach. Marx’s view of economic determinism affirms that private ownership of property results in poverty which distinguishes those who own the means of production from those whom they exploit for economic benefit.

The latter turn to crime as a result of this poverty. Thus, though Marx did not specifically develop a theory of criminal causation but he believed that the economic system was the sole determinant of crime.

According to Marxian approach, crime is caused by a criminogenic milieu which is created by the ever-present disparity between effort and reward, emphasis on equal opportunities yet the unequal reality of a class society, and stress on individual competition yet the handicapped nature of the race.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Such contradictions are hard on the marginalised groups who are denied full access to consumer society. Thus, the very process which binds the worker to his bench turns the mind of the unemployed to crime.

The unequal distribution of property and power in capitalism will always result in the privileged reproducing inequalities of opportunity areas. Thus, according to Marxists, the solution to the problem of containing crime lies in creating a world where formal and substantive inequalities disappear.

Similarly, Sutherland (1965) has said that: (1) we find more criminals in poor families because it is easy to locate them; (2) criminals belonging to upper classes use their influence and pressures in escaping arrests and convictions; and (3) reactions of administrators are more biased towards the upper class people.

No wonder, most behavioural scientists today reject the theory of economic determinism in criminal behaviour. Reid (op. cit.: 174-75) has also said that the problem of defining poverty, the impossibility of isolating other variables so that poverty can be seen as the cause of criminal behaviour, and the future crime to decrease when attempts are made to reduce or eradicate poverty, all these create problems in relating poverty to crime.