For the first part of the 20th Century it was thought, in many academic circles, that crime was largely the result and product of poverty; with the solution to reducing crime rates being the reduction of poverty. Then something “strange” happened: the post-war crime rate started to soar despite a dramatic increase in incomes and the standard of living (an article about this can be accessed here). The causal link between poverty and crime seemed to have been broken, or at the very least substantially weakened. However, a confusing fact remained: the areas/neighborhoods within a city that had the highest crime rates were most often the poorest and most economically deprived ones. This suggested that low incomes had to play a part to some degree in increasing crime rates etc. This led to some criminologists looking at the effects of income inequality on crime; asking the question, “Whilst there might not be a direct link between poverty and crime, do crime rates increase when those who have nothing/too little see those around them having more?” Some theorists postulated that an individual who felt economically marginalized may decide after making an internal “cost-benefit” decision that the risk of engaging in crime was worth taking because the rewards of illegal activities were far greater than anything they could attain via legal means e.g., standing on a corner selling drugs was a far more profitable venture than working in a fast-food restaurant for minimum wage etc. However, whilst this may be a motivating factor for some offenders, the numbers didn’t really add up and couldn’t explain certain types of crimes; and there was a statistical issue. Most of the research used income data to compare it with crime rates. The problem being that offenders don’t have access to this data e.g., they don’t know what other people are earning, and so they can’t make a rational choice as to whether crime pays or not. This led two criminologists (Hicks & Hicks, 2014), to look at how visible signs of income inequality affect offending.

                Their study looked at how people’s spending on cars, eating out, going to cinemas and theatres etc., affected crime i.e., types of spending that could be observed by others e.g., people don’t necessarily know what others in their neighborhood actually earn but make assumptions based on the car(s) they see them driving, the quality of their garden furniture, how they dress etc. It is this visible consumption that creates a sense of equality or inequality. Using government data on spending in different areas and comparing it with rates of offending, Hicks & Hicks were able to find certain correlations. Criminal acts such as theft and vandalism along with other property crimes were largely unaffected by visible spending, however it appeared that spikes in consumption matched those associated with acts of violence such as murder and assault. This suggests that any relationship with visible income inequality is more likely to be an emotional one than a rational one e.g., if seeing someone driving a nice car, made a person want to upgrade their vehicle it is likely that they would engage in some form of property crime which would yield a financial return which they could use to buy a newer/better car etc. It would appear that the crimes that are affected by such spending/income inequality are more likely to be expressive, rather than instrumental, crimes that target others without any tangible return/rewards.

The authors argue that one of the criminological theories that may help to explain such behaviors/actions is Merton’s Strain Theory. Merton saw offending as largely a reaction to the idea of the “American Dream”. He saw that not everyone would be able to attain it (or even wanted to attain it) which would create “strain”, and people would therefore react to this strain in a number of ways. There might be a shop owner who struggles to pay their mortgage, take their family on holiday, put food on the table etc., and worries each month that they won’t be able to pay the bills. This individual is feeling the “strain” of living the American Dream. If they are approached by a local drug dealer who is looking for somewhere to store their stash, this shopkeeper may agree to do so, relieving some of the financial strain they are experiencing. This is just one way that a person may act to relieve their strain. From this study it appears more likely that people relieve their strain through acts of violence, rather than by calculated methods that would see them get ahead financially; that rather than trying to calculate a way to relieve their strain, they react violently in the moment due to an underlying sense of frustration at failing to accomplish what others around them seem to have done. It could be that an individual who is struggling economically finds themselves in an upmarket part of the city, where everyone around them is wearing expensive suits etc., reminding them of their place on the economic ladder when someone suddenly/accidentally bumps into them, causing the individual to physically lash out, rather than acknowledge it as an accident.

                Those who engage in street robberies will sometimes talk about targeting well-dressed/rich looking people, not because they believe they will have a lot of cash on them (poorer people tend to be more likely to carry cash than wealthier individuals who mainly use credit cards), but because they want to bring them down, and demonstrate to them that although they may be higher on the economic ladder, in this moment they lack any power or control over the situation. We are social creatures, and we can’t help but compare ourselves to others, and we all have different reactions and responses when doing so. There will be those who feel the strain when they appear not to be as “successful” and economically rewarded as others, and this may make them more likely to react violently when they feel “challenged” in some way.