![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper analyses if the economic situation is related to punitivity, that is, if adverse of economic patterns go along with a longing for harsher sanctions in the population. Several scholars have postulated that increased economic insecurities and anxieties may lead to the preference for harsher sanctioning. Empirical research, however, could not confirm the link between individual economic conditions and punitivity. We therefore introduce the concept of relative deprivation as mechanism between the economic situation and punitivity. Database is a nationwide representative survey (N = 3,073) with a multilevel design that allows to differentiate between the individual and the county level conditions. Our analyses confirmed the impact of the regional economic situation on punitivity. The objective individual situation, however, has no influence on punitivity, when we control for relative deprivation and education. Additionally, we find a significant impact of relative deprivation on punitivity. Relative deprivation itself is dependent on the individual economic situation as well as on the county level economic conditions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Garland and the other authors presented here are, however not the only who link macroeconomic conditions to punitivity. Radical and Marxist authors provide competing explanations for the link between the economic conditions and punitivity, for example, pointing at the role of marginalisation and the increased need of social control (Lynch, Citation2010; see also Box, Citation1987; Box & Hale, Citation1982).
2. As our focus lies on individual punitivity, we do not consider here studies that consider macro level punitivity (e.g., Greenberg & West, Citation2001; Hale, Citation1989).
3. The respondents in the sample had a higher education level and were (in some German states) older than the target population. The differences regarding sex, household size and age in general were only small. We did not use the weighted data, because we were interested in relationships between variables not in estimating exactly means or proportions of the overall population. To avoid wrong conclusions, we integrated education, age and sex in the multivariate models as control variables.
4. The data on gross domestic product (GDP) and the unemployment rate were derived from the Federal Statistical Agency.
5. Answering categories: (1) “more than the fair share,” (2) “the fair share,” (3) “less than the fair share” and (4) “much less than the fair share.”
6. Answering categories: (1) “all,” (2) “most,” (3) “little” and (4) “almost nothing.” The wording of this item did not include any comparison so that it may be doubted that it measures relative deprivation. However, it should be noted that this item was directly presented after the first relative deprivation item that what introduced by “compared to how others in Germany live,” thus, it can be assumed that the respondents had this comparison in mind when answering the item. Second, the high correlation (r = .579) reveals that both items are indicators of a common underlying dimension (relative deprivation).
7. We also assessed the linearity of the relationship between relative deprivation and punitivity using crosstables and component plus residual plots. We did, however, not find signs of non-linearity nor different relationships within extreme groups.
8. Up to now there are not studies on the question how general personality factors influence the relationship of feelings of insecurity, relative deprivation and punitivity. It can be assumed that a factor like neuroticism increases all of these perceptions and attitudes. A general anxiousness may influence the more concrete ones. Future studies should at least add such personality factors as control variables.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Michael Hanslmaier
Dr. Michael Hanslmaier, MA Sociology, joined the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony (KFN) in 2009. He received his PhD from the University of Leipzig in 2014 with a work on social disorganisation, social capital and crime. At the KFN he was involved in a project on forecasting crime up to the year 2020 and in a project on media use, subjective perception of crime and punitive attitudes.
Dirk Baier
Dr. Dirk Baier, Dipl.-Soc., is Director of the Institute for Delinquency and Crime Prevention at the Zurich University of Applied Science. He received his PhD from the University of Bremen in 2011 with a dissertation on youth crime. His research interests span a broad range of criminological topic with a strong emphasis on youth crime, but also comprising violence against police, forecasting crime and punitive attitudes in the population.