NCJ Number
184379
Date Published
June 1997
Length
4 pages
Publication Series
Annotation
This paper reports on a study that tested the dual labor market
theory, which hypothesizes that criminal behavior is related to
having "good" or "bad" jobs.
Abstract
"Good" jobs, known as primary-sector jobs, pay reasonably well,
have good benefits, and offer future economic advantages. "Bad"
jobs, or secondary-sector jobs, on the other hand, are low
paying, have few benefits and rarely paid vacation, and offer
little or no future. Applying control theory and bonding theory,
the researchers expected that the primary-sector jobs would be
more likely to build attachments and commitments to the job, and
secondary-sector jobs would be less likely. The "good" job would
offer a "stake in conformity" because it has a future, and the
employee would feel that there is something to lose. The research
team analyzed violent crime rates in 121 census tracts in
Seattle, Wash., to test these theories. The variables considered
included the poverty rate, income inequality, percentage of the
population represented by young males, percentage who were
African-American, and the rate of labor market instability (a
combination of the unemployment rate and percentage of the work
force in service-sector jobs). Researchers also analyzed data
from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which studied the
work experiences of young adults ages 14 to 24. Because youths
under 18 years old may have different attitudes about attachment
to work than those over 18, a separate analysis was conducted for
14- to 17-year-olds. The theory of labor market
instability and its relationship to criminality was next applied
to an analysis of census tract data on education, employment, and
crime in Seattle, Cleveland, and Washington, D.C. The theory
appeared to work well in Seattle, marginally in Cleveland, and
not at all in Washington, D.C. The study offers an explanation as
to the findings in Washington, D.C.
Date Published: June 1, 1997