1. The Geography of Social Cohesion and Crime at the Municipality Level Dr. L. Pauwels & Drs. W. Hardyns Dept. of Criminal Law and Criminology Ghent University

2. Objective (1) Evaluate the theoretical role of community level cohesion in studies of the social ecology of crime.  Assessing how social cohesion as community characteristic has been studied from a historical- criminological point of view = “Why would municipalities matter”? (2) Provide arguments of the study of crime at the municipality level  ecological studies are predominantly conducted from a neighbourhood level perspective  theoretical, methodological and policy relevant arguments for the use of municipalities as useful unit of analysis

3. Cohesion and crime from a historical point of view The development of community level social cohesion in criminology: (1) Attempts to identify components of community social cohesion and (2) Attempts to clarify the relationships between components of social cohesion, the concentrations of criminal events in ecological (municipal) settings and individuals exposed to that settings

4. Cohesion and crime from a historical point of view 5 Theoretical frameworks can be discerned (1) Urbanization & Crime Model (inspired by Tönnies, Wirth: pessimistic view) - Stressing the unconditional importance of dense local ties! (2) Social Disorganization Theory (Chicago School, Shaw & McKay) Stressing the consequences of lack of cohesion ≈ Breakdown of traditional institutions (church, school, family…) -> Higher percentages of offenders and offences in disadvantaged areas

5. Cohesion and crime from a historical point of view (3) Systemic Model of Community Attachment (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1950s-1970s) Social cohesion : “Network Density” (not exclusively strong ties!!) Community network density explains community differences and changes in crime and mediates the urbanization-crime relationship The whole local social spectrum is responsible for the degree of social cohesion in a community (aka “the urban village-model”) Precursor of the Social Capital Model

6. Cohesion and crime from a historical point of view (4) Social Capital Model of Crime (< inspired by Bourdieu, Coleman), 1980s & 1990s: Thin trust/reciprocity/civic engagement  Social relationships: not exclusively local ties… … but however, local ties do have advantages: Local social capital provides informal controls preventing the concentration of criminal events in areas

7. Conceptual frameworks from a historical point of view (5) Collective efficacy theory (Sampson et al. 1997, 2003) Theory at multiple levels of aggregation feeding the micro-macro discussion of crime - “Collective efficacy is the linkage of mutual trust and the willingness to intervene for the common good” (< especially collective supervision of the behaviour of children)

8. Overview of theoretical models Subsequent Theoretical models highlight… … (dis)similar Community level determinants of cohesion (1) Urbanization ModelRapid change and Industrialization (2) Social Disorganization ModelEconomic disadvantage Ethnic heterogeneity Residential mobility (3) Community attachmentResidential mobility (4) Social Capital ModelHouse ownership Inequality (5) Collective Efficacy ModelFamily disruption Structural density

9. Contemporary cross-level integrated perspectives of social cohesion and crime? The micro-macro discussion in criminology

10. Contemporary macro level perspective of cohesion and crime Community social structure Community level crime N. D. S. C. C. E. N.D. = Networkdensity S.C. = Social Capital C.E. = Collective Efficacy

11. Contemporary contextual level perspective of cohesion and crime Demographical Background variables Collective efficacy Individual level fear of crime and victimization Macro level Micro level

12. Municipalities as level of analysis Theoretical arguments: local level, with characteristics that are defined above and beyond the neighbourhood level (structural conditions and policy-level variables) Methodological arguments: Crime varies at multiple aggregate levels of analysis Neighbourhood level research ignores intercity level variation Sometimes the neighbourhood level can generate unstable crime rates (small N) Criminal Policy argument: local government is executed at the municipality level

13. Concluding remarks and criticisms Social cohesion in criminology: process of subsequent theoretical extensions (elaborations) Municipalities (macro level) as interesting unit of analysis (rather ‘unknown’ area in the social ecology of crime) Towards cross-level integrated theory and research?

14. Concluding remarks and criticisms Some contemporary criticisms: (1) To what extend does a defined set of common values exist? (2) To what extend does community social cohesion interacts with community structure in its relation to crime as (societal and individual level) outcome? (3) How about the role of negative social capital and its relation with crime? (4) To what extend do municipalities provide meaningful settings for individuals? (5) Are we too much preoccupied with locality?