Printer Friendly

White-Collar Crime: An Emperical Analysis of Social Power as a Cause of Criminality.

Byline: Abdul Razzaq Ahmed

The concept of deviant behavior propounded as White-Collar crime is not new. It is centuries old phenomenon of human deviance that was identified and labeled as such in modern criminology by an American sociologist E.H.Sutherland in 1939. Ever since this social term was introduced to describe criminal behavior, both the concept and theories explaining White-Collar criminality remained under intellectual scrutiny. The term was originally defined by its author as crime committed by persons of respectability and high social status in course of their occupation. The literature on this subject was mainly generated in USA and during the last seven decades various explanations of White-Collar criminality were proposed by different scholars. Although the term was initially associated with deviance of persons of respectability and high social status but with the passage of time, it was shown through empirical evidence that this phenomenon cannot essentially be associated with upper classes of the society only.

Majority of the scholars now agree that intensity of White-Collar criminality among middle classes is higher than what is being apportioned to elite classes. The scholarly work on the subject often has indicated that the social phenomenon of white-collar criminality is closely associated with different occupational activities. However, dilating upon etiological factors of this phenomenon, different scholars have propounded different theories. Based on the empirical analysis, this research work proposes a theoretical outlook of this phenomenon that connects this deviance with power wielded by the perpetrators from different occupations in our society.

Key Words: White-Collar crime, criminal behavior, crime theory, social power, elite deviance, power crime, crime of privilege, occupational crime.


White-Collar criminality is a phenomenon that has been associated with human life for ages. With the explanation of this term in an intellectually technical manner by Sutherland (1949), White-Collar crime was proposed as a new kind of deviant behavior in modern criminology as compared to street crimes and juvenile delinquency. Definition of White-Collar crime continues to be a subject of intellectual squabble since its outset by its originator. Over the past decades many scholars have attempted to refine the conceptual substance of the term according to their own orientation and perspectives (see Frank, 1950, Edelhertz, 1970, Reiss and Biderrman, 1980, Albanese, 1996 and Coleman, 2002). Efforts to arrive at a better or agreed upon definition are still continuing. This intellectual debacle is not an exception. These conceptual problems are inherent in any socially construed phenomenon, and are part and parcel of scientific method (Schlegel, 1996).

Perhaps the term White-Collar crime is a social phenomenon that has attracted scholarly attention the most in recent history for scholarly and intellectual scrutiny. Despite want of clarity and consensus over definition of the term, the concept of White-Collar crime remains widely understood among the scholars, lawyers, law enforcers and jurists. Although, definitional issues of the concept remain controversial even today; yet the concept and connected phenomena became widely understood among the scholars, academicians and the law enforcers.

Apart from the criticism from many scholars, Sutherland very successfully conveyed his concept of White-Collar crime. His assertions created a genuine and ever growing concern among the criminologists, sociologists, politicians, scholars, researchers and others towards this problem of social significance. In fact his introduction of the concept brought to lime light an ignored area of deviance that was not recognized as such in ordinary course of understanding the deviant behavior. Thus jurists, reformers, administrators, prosecuting agencies, police officials, judges, researchers and scholars were forced to re-think the causes of deviant behavior from the perspective of White-Collar criminality rather than rely on the theories of juvenile deviance and other ordinary crimes that were already there in literature of criminology. This development brought into play contributions from a variety of scholars over the past decades who attempted to explain causative factors of White-Collar criminality.

Although the originator of the concept of White-Collar crime is said to have failed to present an all encompassing definition of the term but he attempted to propose the theory of differential association to explain the phenomena of White-Collar crime. Both the concept and the theory remain a subject of intellectual criticism and scrutiny (Geis, 2007).


It is worthwhile to explain here that a theory facilitates understanding of the empirical world in a systematic way (Scott and Marshal, 2005). Since these theories are formulated after critical scrutiny of empirical data and functional analysis of social facts; these theories provide not only a direction towards an empirical generalization but also take us to new social discoveries hinting at patterns of social facts. The use of a social theory to test a new variety of data also provides an opportunity to test the re-validation of theory and also helps in coming to any surprise or additional findings. A social theory may not cover enlarged theoretical generalizations as compared to a theory of natural sciences. A social theory definitely covers a large canvas of social segment of contemporary society. But a social theory does not necessarily answer to all aspects of a social phenomenon.

This is perhaps the reason that no universally acceptable social theory has so far been agreed to explain White-Collar criminality or any type of criminal behavior and despite colossal efforts put into research, this issue still remains to be settled. Merton (1967a) asserts that 'different sectors in the spectrum of basic research and theory have different probabilities of being relevant to particular practical problems and their potential of being relevant varies'. Because of this reason sociologists have been formulating social theories applicable to limited conceptual ranges such as deviant behavior, social control and organizational behavior etc. These theories may be consolidated progressively to generalize social phenomena of broader variety. According to Merton (1967a) 'concentrating entirely on special theories leads to specific hypotheses that cover limited aspects of social behavior, organization and change but such hypothesis remain mutually inconsistent.

This may even lead to polarization among the social scientists which consequently promotes alienation and bias in understanding and explaining empirical data'.

It is most important to highlight that the scope of a theory particularly in sociology, is limited to a particular phenomena or social fact. This is so because value systems in different sub cultures may not necessarily confirm to the imperatives explain in a theory explaining a social fact or phenomenon. It is also likely that a set of theories may be needed for a full explanation of complex social phenomenon. For example to explain the phenomena of White-Collar crime, the researcher may have to explore motivational aspects, structural constraints of society, trends in achieving cultural goals, tolerance of corruption by the society, psychological tendencies, socio-economic conditions and operative social pressures prevailing in society at a particular time. In such social milieu one theory may not be all encompassing and it may explain just one aspect of the problem.


A number of theories have been propounded by different scholars of White- Collar crime in the past. The first of its kind was proposed by the Sutherland, who coined the term White-Collar crime. A number of later scholars continued to explore the field of empirical reasoning and presented their own explanation of different causative factors to describe and explain the deviant behavior of White-Collar criminality. A survey of these theories is presented before disclosing empirical findings of this research paper.

Theory of Differential Association

The theory of differential association was enunciated by the originator of the term 'White-Collar crime'. Sutherland first formulated this theory in first chapter of his 1939 monograph 'Principles of Criminology'. He presented a revised formulation in 1947 in revised edition of the same book. This theory was in fact an explanation of the causes of White-Collar crimes. However, later, Sutherland's own explanation of this theory made it applicable to all types of deviant behavior. This theory stood beyond any challenge or refutation because of its comprehensive and systematic explanation of deviant behavior. It not only explained the causes of White-Collar crime but also stipulated a variety of postulates explaining causes of other type of criminality. Prior to this theory the criminologists and theorists were focused on explaining causes of juvenile and street crimes. Sutherland's theory attracted attention of social scientists and theorist to other vital aspects of etiology of deviant behavior.

Various postulates may be applied individually or in combination to explain different types of deviant behaviors. The most important nine postulates of this theory of differential association as highlighted in (Sutherland and Cressey, 1978) are stipulated below:

(1) Criminal behavior is learnt. This first postulate of the theory stipulates that criminal behavior is not inherited as was previously believed. It implies that the person who is not already trained in crime does not invent criminal behavior, same as a person does not make mechanical inventions unless he has had training in mechanics.

(2) Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communications. This communication is verbal in many respects but includes also 'the communication of gestures'.

(3) The principal part of the learning behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. This means that the impersonal agencies of communication, such as media, movies and newspapers play a relatively unimportant part in the genesis of criminal behavior.

(4) When criminal behavior is learnt, the learning includes:

(a) Techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple.

(b) The specific direction of motives, drives, rationalization, and attitudes.

(5) The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable and unfavorable. In some societies an individual is surrounded by persons who invariably define the legal codes as rules to be observed, while in others he is surrounded by persons whose definitions are favorable to the violation of legal codes.

(6) A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. This is the principle of differential association. It covers both criminal and anti- criminal associations and has to do with counteracting forces. It explains that when persons become criminal, they do so because of contacts with criminal patterns and also because of isolation from anti-criminal patterns. Negatively, this proposition of criminal association means that associations which are neutral so far as crime is concerned, have little or no effect on the genesis of criminal behavior.

(7) Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. This means that association with criminal behavior and also association with anti-criminal behavior vary in those respects. Frequencies and durations as modalities of associations are obvious and need no explanations. It implies that lawful behavior developed in early childhood may persist through out life, and also that delinquent behavior developed in early childhood may persist throughout life.

(8) The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Negatively, it means that learning of criminal behavior is not restricted to the process of imitation. A person who is seduced, for instance, learns criminal behavior by association, but this process would not ordinarily be described as imitation.

(9) While criminal behavior is expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. For example thieves generally steal in order to secure money but likewise honest laborers work in order to secure money.

These nine postulates of the theory of differential association, comprehensively explain causes of criminal behavior. It is not necessary that all these postulates should be applied to explain any aspect of criminal behavior. One or combination of more than one postulates may explain any aspect of deviant behavior. The theory of differential association was welcomed by the scholars as an innovative effort when Sutherland presented this theory first time in 1939. It proved to be a departure from conventional theorizing of explaining causes of criminal behavior as 'inherited'. Sutherland propounded this theory in pursuit of his study of white- collar crime. Later he modified it and advocated its applicability on all forms of deviant behavior. This theory even today best explains criminal behavior of White-Collar offenders explaining all dimensions of White-Collar criminality falling within the collective and individual postulates of the theory.

Theory of Motivation and Opportunity

With respect to White-Collar crime, scholars continued their quest to find out a better definition and a theory that could comprehensively explain the causative factors of White-Collar crime. This quest for an all encompassing definition and theory brought in the scholarly field a number of theories to explain White-Collar criminality. This also includes theory of motivation and opportunity (Coleman, 1987). To explain his insight into the White-Collar criminality, Coleman focuses particularly on combination of two causal aspects namely appropriate motivation and opportunity. Coleman asserts that motivation for White-Collar crime is associated with the social structure of industrial capitalism and the resultant culture of competition. According to Coleman, 'an opportunity to commit the crime must ultimately reach down and become psychologically available to the individual actor or it will remain merely a theoretical possibility.

The roots of individual motivation for White-Collar crime can be traced directly to the culture and structure of individual society. Motivation and opportunity are inseparably interwoven, and any successful theory of White-Collar crime must take that fact into account' (Coleman, 1994). All opportunities are not equal and it is the perpetrator's own assessment of the possibility of being caught or rewarded that determines his behavior. While concluding, Coleman asserts that one factor in creating motivation for White-Collar crime is neutralization of society's ethical restraint. The individual neutralizes it through various rationalizations and on the organizational level, these rationalizations are formed through social pressures available within the organizational sub-cultures.

General Theory of Crime

Michael Gottfredson and Travish Hirschi (1990) adopted a different approach towards constructing a general theory of White-Collar crime. They stated that absence of self control, combined with opportunity, is adequate to explain all crimes at all times and in all places. They assert that their theory is equally applicable to all deviant acts including substance abuse, family problems, tendency to smoke and illicit sex relations. According to the originators of this theory, people with low self-control are said to be risk-seeking, short-sighted, insensitive to others, and desire immediate gratification. They assert that crime is an ordinary act that requires 'no skill, no organization, no resources, no success.....The offender sees a momentary opportunity to get something for nothing'. With respect to White-Collar crime, the thesis of these theorists is that White-Collar crime specifically provides relatively quick and relatively certain benefits with minimum efforts.

The authors of this theory asserts that crimes including White-Collar crimes, require no motivation, or pressure that is not present in any other form of criminal behavior.

According to general theory of crime, criminality is the tendency of individuals to pursue short term gratification in most direct way with little consideration for long-term consequences of their acts. Indicators of such a tendency have been stated to be impulsivity, aggression, activity level and lack of concern for others. This theory postulates that people high on this tendency scale are relatively unable or unwilling to delay gratification; implying that they have low self control. This theory predicts relatively low rate of offending among White-Collar workers as compared to blue collar workers on the stated grounds that occupational traits of White-Collar workers tend to be inconsistent with the traits comprising criminality. In other words, selection processes dictated by high ends of occupational structure compel recruitment of people with relatively low propensity to crime.

Later scholars tested the accuracy of self-control theory and they concluded that there is indeed a partial connection between illegal behavior and absence of self control in the offender.

Rational Choice Theory

The rational choice principles were brought into criminal theorizing by economists who attempted to find out how human behavior works and how it can be changed. Rational choice theory postulates that humans are goal-oriented (money being a particularly powerful goal) and that their behavior can be manipulated by changing situations so that acts that violate the law will not have satisfying outcomes.

Historically, rational choice theory progressively found place in social science research in fields of study of crime. In recent decades, there is increased research activity in a number of journals where arguments are built on the basis of rational choice theory. Some of these researches include income tax evasion (Klepper and Nagin, 1989), drunk driving (Nagin and Paternoster, 1993), burglary (wright and Decker, 1994), shoplifting (Piquero and Tibbetts, 1996), White-Collar crimes (Paternoster and Simpson, 1996, Simson, Piquero and Paternosterand, 1998) and hijacking (Dugan, Lafree and Piquero, 2005). When applied to the White-Collar criminals, the two major points to be considered are what the person, who did the act, sought to achieve and what that person believed were the circumstances that would enable him or her to get away with the outlawed behavior (Geis, 2007).

Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke (1986) are the leading supporters of the rational choice theory. Their orientation is that looking at crime as a single kind of behavior must be stopped. Rather, criminologists must focus on specific forms of behavior. Particular criminal event itself and situational conditions contributing to the commission of crime must be examined closely. They further observe that 'Offenders seek to benefit themselves by their criminal behavior. This involves the making of decision and choices, however rudimentary on occasions these processes might be. These processes exhibit a measure of rationality, albeit constrained by limits of time and the availability of relevant information'.

The 'decisions and choices' will obviously be different in case of each individual because tolerance level and ability of facing risk will be different. Moral codes and internalized values may be determining factors in making decisions and choices.

The most recent systematic attempt to interpret White-Collar crime within a this theoretical framework appears in the work of Neal Shover and Andy Hochstetler (2006), who place reliance upon the concept of rational choice to explain the dynamics of White-Collar crime.

Theory of Anomie

Anomie theory explains a social phenomenon that describes a state of norm lessness. It postulates that people tend to follow their own way to achieve success when legitimately available means fail to provide them their due share of success. Over emphasis on achieving cultural ideals, with little or no regards for moral or ethical mandates to achieve such cultural ideals is referred to as anomie. Anomie implies that breakdown of system of merit promotes lawlessness. When social segments of society are not in a state of organic solidarity, it is because the relations of societal organs are un-regulated, as they are in a state of anomie (Durkheim, 1960). It is generally believed that the concept of anomie in modern sociology was introduced by Durkheim, however this concept is centuries old and had different connotations at different times (Orru, 1987). However, generally accepted fact is that Durkheim has been an unavoidable reference for all contemporary literature on this topic (Orru, 1987).

According to Durkheim, the opposite of anomie is solidarity.

Merton (1938) presented a relationship between anomie and social behavior. According to Merton, delinquency and other forms of social deviance, are a response to non availability of socially approved channels to success, and under such conditions social structure strains the cultural values that forces economically deprived individuals to follow socially unapproved routes in pursuits of their cultural ideals where those occupying certain status in the society readily achieve such cultural ideals. In other words in Mertonian orientation of the concept what is encouraged in society is 'success' and so goals are more important than the legitimacy of means to achieve such goals. These cultural goals refer to legitimate objectives for all or for diversely located members of society (Merton, 1967b). The members of a society are obliged to achieve these goals remaining within the ambit of social structure.

Theory of Opportunity

The theory of opportunity is the latest work proposed by Benson and Sally (2009). They have propounded that from offender 's point of view, it is opportunity alone that causes White-Collar crime to be committed by the offenders. They argue that to understand why a particular crime occurs at a particular time and place, it is necessary to pay attention not only to the person who commits the crime but to the 'situation' in which the person is located. They admit that it is important to know about an offender 's motives or reasons for committing an offence (partially accepting Coleman's theory of motivation and opportunity). In support of their proposition, they continue to assert that if an offender has a strong motive to steal then what is the explanation that he prefers to steal from a liquor store as opposed to a bank that sits next door to the liquor store. Particularly both places have the money that the offender needs. Why to choose one in place of other.

The main component of this theory is that an offender chooses an easy and convenient place and means that provide him suitable opportunity to commit the White-Collar crime. In the above example the proponents state that Banks often have security guards who have guns. Banks have video cameras that take pictures. If it happens to be after business and the bank is closed, the chances of breaking in and stealing anything are nil. They argue that liquor stores, on the other hand, are open for longer hours than the banks.

They may be staffed by only one person. They may not have security cameras, and best of all, the money is right there in the cash register. Based on this analogy Benson and Sally (2009) the liquor store presents a better criminal opportunity than the bank, especially if the criminal is working alone and in a hurry. Relying on routine activity theory, they further assert that a criminal opportunity comprises two elements: a suitable target and a lack of capable guardianship. The target can be a person or some kind of property. There are also many factors that can make one piece of property more suitable than another. Property becomes attractive to an offender if it is portable, valuable and fungible.

According to the proponents, the two essential components of this theory are: opportunity and a capable guardianship, or rather lack of guardianship. By capable guardianship is meant anything that can either physically prevent the offender from getting to the target or that can make the offender decide it is too risky to go after the target. Guardianship takes too main forms: blocking access and surveillance. It is however, pointed out that the basic problem with description of this theory is that; to explain their theoretical concept its originators have given example of supposed incidents that are often connected with street crimes.


The empirical data for this research paper was collected from a select group of persons who occupy high place in society and have some elective power at hand to manage things at their choice and disposal. The respondents included persons at high places both from private and public sector organizations. This comprised of senior bureaucrats, politicians, middle level public functionaries, private business individuals, contractors, consumers and individuals interacting with those having power at their choice and disposal. Ethnographic method coupled with data gathered from scholarly and journalistic sources was utilized to analyze the hypothesis. Unstructured, informal interviews were conducted in several sittings with the subjects. Some individuals preferred to respond through e-mail. In selecting the respondents, snow ball technique was used because of the nature and limitation of hypothesis. Information gathered from one respondent was used to approach another to enlarge the size of sample.

Useful information was available from some of the people who had experience of dealing with police, customs officials, tax collectors and officials providing utilities. A narrative of their experience with power wielding was prepared and was closely examined to explore this subtle area of White-Collar crime and corruption. Some bureaucrats and retired defense forces officers were contacted to share their experience while in power. Empirical notes were also gathered through personal experience and observation with a special vigil to observe behavior of individuals who have some position of power or status in society. These empirical notes were successfully used to explain deviant behavior of individuals while they have control over something or have social power in society. A mix of respondents both at high, middle and lower position of power both in private and public sector have provided somewhat adequate empirical data to draw conclusion to explain White- Collar crime within the social power perspective.


One of the most productive outcomes of this research is emergence of a continuing indicator that shows that it is power and authority at the hands of an individual in society that lead him to commit White-Collar crime. This power driven deviance may be called power imbued deviance. Imbued with power and authority the individual perpetrator tends to be self-righteous and resorts to illegal and self serving acts. The influence of social power takes away from him conscionability of wrongness during the time he wields such power. The ability to commit White-Collar crime vitiates with vitiation of power at the disposal of the perpetrator. This social power theory is based on power lag or power dynamics that is a cause of White-Collar crime in our society. The theoretical outcome of this empirical analysis is more relevant and prominently visible in societies where a standard of rule of law is low. In other words, mechanism of social control and accountability is weak.

This new theory explains that deviant behavior is caused because of a power lag between the perpetrator and the victims. Conceptually, this theory may be postulated as under:

a. Deviant behavior for White-Collar criminality is induced because of a power lag between the perpetrator and the victim of White-Collar crime. The deviant behavior within the scope of this theory is power imbued behavior that takes place due the relative position of the perpetrator as compared to that of the victim.

b. Where the power lag between the perpetrator and that of the victim is reduced, possibility of committing the crime is also reduced. When position of power is lost, the ability to commit the crime is also lost.

c. The power within the context of this theory implies the ability to influence things to one's advantage. It is essentially the social power connected with the position of the individual at the time of commission of White-Collar crime. The individual includes both a natural or legal person such as a corporation, a company or group of persons. It is also the relative power in relation to the victim at the time of commission of crime and does not include physical power. A public official may extort bribe from a powerful executive just to speed up a process.

d. Some power is essentially available to every individual in whatever legitimate and socially approved position or work activity he may be associated. It may be position of a low grade employee such as a peon, a clerk, a grocery seller or a corporate manager, professional, top executive or political office holder. This positional power enables the individuals to commit crime commensurate with their position in given social settings.

e. The ability to commit the crime is relative to the quantum of power at the hands of the perpetrator. It is indeed social position of the perpetrator that determines nature of his actions (commissions) as illegal, violative or otherwise. The greater the power at hands, the more the possibilities of committing the crime and less are the chances of being blamed for violation. A lower level public official may be blamed for breaking the law for same cause whereas chief executive of the government may not be blamed for same violation. Same analogy is applicable in every other scenario that is connected with power dynamics of White-Collar criminality.

f. Some ingredients of power include occupational positions, specialized skills, knowledge, control over resources, discretion to make a decision, dis-advantageous and vulnerable position, dependence and powerlessness of victims and ability of the perpetrator to violate law, societal norms, code of ethics etc without accountability.

The power theory is particularly applicable to White-Collar criminality. It is every day experience that this power imbued behavior enables the perpetrators to commit White-Collar crime. Because of being powerful at the moment, the perpetrator tends to do such acts and omissions the consequential effect of which spills out of moral codes and boundaries of normative structure. The empirical data examined, provides a manifestation of this power imbued deviant behavior.


The scholars and criminologists have often called white-crime as crime committed by persons at high places only. However, later scholars found that such behavior is not restricted to power elites but it is most often found among those who are not really so powerful. This humble research work propounds that such White-Collar deviance may be associated with any person who has some social power at his disposal. This power essentially comes from the position of an individual that he legitimately occupies in a society. The social power is thus an individual's ability to influence things around him. Obviously, this ability is commensurate with the quantum of power that an individual wields. It may be power of a peon, an office worker, a middle level executive, a senior executive, a senior bureaucrat, a politician, country's executive, a professional, a businessman, a shop keeper or any other person having legitimate position in society by virtue of his legitimate occupation.

A peon may have a very limited amount of power to influence things in a wrong direction but yet he derives his ability to do wrong because his power has been derived from his position. Similar is the case with persons at high places. Every day we hear of incidents of deviance, corruption and malpractices by senior bureaucrats, politicians and public functionaries. These individuals become wrong doers because of the power that they have at the time of committing such White-Collar crime. Imbued with power that they enjoy at a particular moment, they tend to disregard law, societal codes, moral norms and fear of being caught. This power imbued behavior creates an internal affinity within the power wielder that leads him to commit White- Collar crime. On the contrary powerlessness of their victims provides them an impulse to commit such crimes. This power lag between the perpetrator and the victim facilitates White-Collar crime to flourish.

Where the power lag is reduced, frequency of committing such crime also reduces. It is obvious that where system of governance is intact, institutional mechanism is strong, standards of transparency and accountability are high, rule of law is effectively ensured, the individual wielding such power will have resistance and frequency of committing the crime will be reduced. In other words effective social controls across the society, reduces frequency of deviant behavior. The sale and manufacturing of hazardous products, financial and employment frauds, illegal allotment of land, misappropriation of funds, unfair reciprocal favors are some of every day observed and observable examples that conform to the stipulations of this power theory. For example if we examine relative position of power of the professional doctors they are able to prey on their victims.

Their skills, trust of the patient, position to conceal, weak social control and regulatory mechanism, lack of awareness of the patients and victims dependence are some of the factor that provides these professionals ability to influence things to their advantage. The cyber crimes are also committed because of the social power derived from skill of the perpetrators. Same is true for corporate criminals who resort to cartelization, hoard commodities because of having power to control resources needed by public. The industries are able to influence the government policies because of relative advantageous positions. As the empirical evidence has suggested, it is the power of the politicians that while holding public office, they are able to violate law and regulations and still remain away from process of accountability. When not in power they sometimes face accountability.

The societies in transition, like ours, perhaps will have tremendous empirical evidence to show the projected relationship between the power and deviant behavior of White-Collar criminals.

The author is a research scholar holding LLM with a Ph.D degree in White- Collar crimes from University of Karachi. He has research interest in crime, law and society.


Albanese. (1996) Offence-Based versus Offender-Based Definition of White- Collar Crime. In Definitional Dilemma: Can and Should There be a Universal Definition of White-Collar Crime?" West Virginia: National White-Collar Crime Centre

Benson.Michael L,Sally.S.Simpson (2009).White-Collar Crime: An Opportunity Perspective. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Coleman J.W. (1987). Towards an Integrated Theory of White-Collar Crime. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 408.

Coleman J.W. (1994). The Criminal Elite: The sociology of White-Collar crime. New York: Saint Martin's Press.

Coleman. J. W. (2002). The Criminal Elite: Understanding White-Collar Crime New York: Worth Publishers

Derick B. Cornish and Clarke.V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspective on offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Durkheim Emile.(1960). The Division of Labor in Society 4th Edn. Illinois: Free Press.

Dugan.L, Lafree.G and Piquero.A.R. (2005). Testing a rational choice model of airline hijackings. Criminology 43(4), 1031-1065.

Edelhetz. H.(1970) The Nature, Impact and Prosecution of White-Collar Crime Washington: D.C Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, US Department of Justice.

Frank.Hurtung.E.(1950). White-Collar Offences in the Wholesale Meat Industry in Detroit. American Journal of Sociology, 56.

Geis.Gilbert.(2007). White-Collar and corporate crime. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Klepper, Steve and Daniel. S.Nagin. (1989). Tax compliance and perceptions of the risks of detection and criminal prosecution. Law and society Review, 23: 209- 240.

Merton.Robert.K.(1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3:672-82.

Merton.Robert.K. (1967a). On Theoretical sociology. New York: The Free Press

Michael.Gottfredson and Hirschi T. (1990) A General Theory of Crime Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Nagin Denial and Paternoster Raymond. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27: 467-496.

Neal.Shover. Andy.Hochstetler and Alfred.Blumstein. (2006). Choosing White- Collar Crime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Orru Marco. (1987). Anomie, History and Meanings. Boston: Allen and Unwin

Paternoster.Raymond and Sally S.Simpson. (1996). Sanction threat and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 30(3): 549-583

Picquero, Alex R. and Stephen G. Tibbetts. (1996). Specifying the direct and Indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offender's decision Making: Towards a More Complete Model of Rational Offending. Justice Quarterly, 13(3): 481-510.

Reiss.Albert.J.Jr and Albert D. Biderrman. (1980) Data Sources on White-Collar Law breaking. Washington D.C: Government Printing Office.

Schlegal. Kip. (1996) Recalling Status, Power and Respectability in the Study of White-Collar Crime. In Definitional Dilemma: Can and Should There be a Universal Definition of White-Collar Crime?" West Virginia: National White- Collar Crime Centre.

Scott J. and Marshall Gordon. (2005) Dictionary of Sociology New York: Oxford University Press.

Simpson. Sally. S.Nicole. L, Picquero.Alex, and Raymond Paternoster. (1998). Exploring Micro-Macro Link in Corporate Crime Research. In Peter Bamberger and William J. Sonnenstuhl (edn) Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Greenwhich: JAI Press

Sutherland.E.H. (1949). The White-Collar Criminal. In Encyclopedia of Criminology, Edn. Vernon.C.branham and Samuel B. Kutash. New York: Philosophical Liberary.

Sutherland Edwin.H, Cressey. Donald. R. (1978) Criminology 10th Edn. Philadelphia: J.B.Lippincott Company.

Wright, Richard T. and Scott.H. Decker. (1994). Burglars on the jobs: street life and residential break-ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
COPYRIGHT 2013 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:New Horizons
Geographic Code:1U2NY
Date:Jun 30, 2013
Previous Article:Therapeutic, Educational And Employment Services for Children with Intellectual Disability in Pakistan.
Next Article:Perception of Youth and Adults About Politicians in Pakistan.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters