Explanations of CC - strain, differential association and subcultural, labelling and marxist theory, postmodernism

Strain theory

• Blocking of legal opportunities to achieve material wealth → crime

Strain theory — Box (1983)

• Company cannot achieve goal of maximising profit by legal means → uses illegal means

  • Reason = difficulty of business conditions that squeezes profitability

Strain theory — Clinard and Yeager (1980)

• Bad financial performance → law violations by large companies

  • Willing to ‘innovate’ to achieve goals

CRITICISM of Clinard and Yeager (1980)

• Take law enforcement records for granted as true measures of CC

Differential association and subcultural theory — Sutherland (1949)

• Crime = behaviour learned from others in a social context

• Less association with law-abiding citizens + more association with criminal attitude people (i.e. time spent in a company culture that justifies criminality) → employees socialised into criminality and more likely to become deviant,

Differential association and subcultural theory — Geis (1967)

• Individual employees socialised into illegal price-fixing company culture

• Evidence given to congressional hearings in 🇺🇸 into illegal price fixing agreements.

  • People taking up posts found price fixing an established practice and would routinely become involved in it

Differential association and subcultural theory — Anbert

• Rationing procedures during WW2 subverted by officals and food orgs

• Criminal practices normal

Differential association and subcultural theory — Braithwaite

• Bribing health inspectors seen as normal part of business practice in pharmaceutical industry

Differential association and subcultural theory — deviant subcultures

• Groups who share a set of norms and values at odds w/those of wider society

  • Offer deviant solutions to member’s shared problems

Differential association and subcultural theory — deviant subcultures in CC

• Company employees face problems w/achieving corporate goals → adopt devaint means to achieve said goals → socialise new employees into said deviant means

• Business culture favours and promotes aggressive/competitive personality types who are more willing to commit crime to be successful

Differential association and subcultural theory — Sykes and Matza (1957)

• Techniques of neutralisation have to be learnt in order to socialise into deviate coprorate culture

• Individuals deviate more easily if can produce justifications to neutralise moral objections to their behaviour

  • E.g. ⚪👕 criminals

    • “Carrying out orders from above”

    • Victim-blaming — “read the small print”

    • “Everyone’s doing it”

Labelling theory — Cicourel (1968)

• M/C more able to negitate non-criminal labels for their ‘misbehaviour’

Labelling theory — Nelken (2012)

• De/non-labelling

• Bsuinesses and professionals have more power than the poor to avoid labelling

• Law enforcement both reluctant and unable to investigate and prosectute → lower number of offences offically recorded as CC

Labelling theory — Nelken (2012) — 2 ways businesses avoid labelling

1. Expensive lawyers

• Reduce seriousness of charges

• Avoid criminal label

2. Expensive accountants

• Avoid activities they’re involved in

Marxism

• CC = due to normal functioning of capitalism (criminogenic!)

• Corporations comply w/law if strictly enforced but in LICs capitalism shows its true face

Marxism — Box (1983)

• Capitalism has created a ‘mystification’ where CC is seen as less widespread/harmful than W/C crime

Marxism — Pearce (1976)

• Occasional prosecution of CC sustains illusion that CC = exception and avoids crisis of legitimacy

Marxism (and labelling theory) — Box (1983)

• Tensions between means and ends → corporations = criminogenic

PoMo — Katz (1988) and Lyng (1990; 2005)

• Crime and be seductive

• Thrill-seeking and risk-taking → committing crime

PoMo — Nelken (2012)

• Subculture of high finance = young men living ‘life in the fast lane’

  • High-risk decisions > money

CRITICISMS of strain and marxist theory

• Over-predict amount of business crime

CRITICISM — Nelken (2012)

• Businesses don’t avoid crime just because of punishments, also want to maintain good relations with other companies

CRITICISM

• State agencies (non-profit) should have no reason to commit crime but do?

CRITICISM — Braithwaite (1984)

• Law-abiding = more profitable than lawbreaking

• 🇺🇸 pharmeceutical companies can accesss more lucrative markets in poorer countries by complying w/FDA (as it’s also used there)