What Is The Concentric Zone Model?

Through his direct and indirect experiences, he establishes why street individuals not only commit criminal or delinquent acts, but have a reoccurrence of these behaviors. To begin, general strain theory, a theory that claims individuals engage in criminal and delinquent behavior because of strains and stressors, is illustrated through societal expectations and the difficulty street people face in attempt to change their life course. Further, social disorganization theory, a theory that links crime rates directly to neighborhood ecological characteristics, is displayed through the inner-city neighborhood?s broken and tarnished social institutions, as well as the role that never-ending-cycles play in their everyday lives. In all, while there are multiple criminological theories that explain the contributions various parts of life has on the causes of crime, general strain theory and social disorganization theory exemplify the causation of crime and delinquency through the entirety of Anderson?s Code of the

Social Disorganization theory connects crime rates to neighborhood ecological characteristics. Based on the research and according to Osgood and Chambers, social disorganization theory specifies three important variables; residential instability, ethnic Heterogeneity, female-headed households. These three variables are considered to be the most criminogenic.

Based on the social disorganization theory; Shaw and McKay account for high crime begins with poverty, low socioeconomic status and the inability to “control the teenage population,” (Sampson, 2016). Shaw and McKay also knew that within the community, delinquency was a trait that was picked-up by and from other delinquents. Furthermore, if the ability to control young

Social disorganization theory was established by Shaw and Mckay (1942) in their famous work “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas”. The main argument of the social disorganization theory is that, the place where people live will influence the individual’s behavior, and this may lead them to crimes. More precisely, certain characteristics of the neighborhood/community will strengthen or weaken the informal social control within the community, and this has mediating effect on crimes.

Burgess’s concentric zone theory was presented in 1924. He presented a descriptive urban land use model that divided cities in a set of concentric circles expanding from downtown to the suburbs. His representation came from Burgess’ observations of various American cities, especially Chicago. Burgess model assumes a relationship between the socio-economic status of households and the distance from the Central Business District. The further from the district, the better the quality of housing, but the longer the commuting time. Making this Accessing better housing is done at the expense of longer commuting times and costs as well. According to Burgess, urban growth is a process of expansion and reconversion of land uses, with a tendency of each inner zone to expand in the outer zone. According to Burgess’ theory, a large city is divided in six concentric zones, Burgess’s model has its cons according to critics. It is said to be a product of its time. That is, it won’t work the same with present cities. The model was developed when American cities were growing very fast and when motorized transportation was still uncommon as most people used public transit. Thus the concept cannot be applied to those from the second half to the twentieth century where highways have enabled urban development to escape the reconversion process and to take place directly in the suburbs. The model in this case was developed for American cities and is limited elsewhere.

Sutherland’s theory piggyback on Social Disorganization theory by answering some of the critic’s questions about why only some people in crime-prone neighbors commit crime while many others do not. While Aker’s theory pick up where Sutherland

The assumption with this theory is that those neighborhoods that are disorganized and messy will have higher crime rates than neighborhoods that are clean and orderly. In neighborhoods that are messy and disorganized, it starts to become the norm, and there starts to become less control that leads to disorder and crime.

This theory is often referred to as a Concentric Zone Theory.# Burgess believed that as cities expand in size, the development is patterned socially and argued that the city of Chicago could be described in terms of five concentric zones. It was by a competitive process that decided how people were distributed spatially amongst the zones.# The most expensive residential areas were in the outer zones, away from the chaotic atmosphere in the city centre, the pollution caused by factories and the homes of the poor. However, Burgess placed great importance on the ‘zone of transition '. The zone of transition was an area of great social upheaval, which contained deteriorating tenements, often built in the shadow of ageing factories. This zone was described as the least desirable living area and was the focus for the influx of waves of immigrants, as this was the only place the immigrants could afford to reside. This lead to weak family and communal ties which resulted in ‘social disorganisation and it was this disorganisation that was presented as the primary explanation of criminal behaviour.#

Another theory that many like to refer to would be social disorganization. This philosophy concentrates more on the circumstances in the inner city that affect crimes. They include, but are not limited to, the destruction of homes and neighborhoods, lack of social control, and the presence of gangs or groups who violate the law (Siegel 2010). Other than this theory, there is such thing as the strain theory. This suggests that crime is brought upon communities and individuals by the overwhelming strain that people are feeling when they aspire to reach their personal ambitions but have no way to grasp them. According to Featherstone and Deflem (2003), strain theorists believe that money and power are spread throughout economic classes unequally. They feel as if this frustration and strain built by individuals who are not able to achieve their goals is what influences a person’s choice to commit a crime. Believing this, strain theorists feel that the youth are certain that the only way to obtain what they desire is to join gangs, because they see other gang members in the community prosper with money. However, it is due to a life of crime and unfortunately, the youth feel as if joining the gang will benefit them in the same way.

So far, both theories are able to explain the crime inequality observed insides neighbourhoods; however, when it comes to explaining the difference in crime rates between neighbourhoods with similarly low levels of poverty, social disorganization theory is not able to fully explain why such difference may occur, as it places a greater focus on the internal dynamics of the neighbourhoods than on the external contingencies (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 92). Based on Table 4.5 of Divergent Social Worlds: Neighborhood Crime and the Racial-Spatial DivideI, minority low-poverty areas have roughly two and a half times more violence than their white counterparts (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 88). Social disorganization theory insists that residential instability (percent of those who owns and percent of those who rent) , population heterogeneity (internal differences, including ethno-racial differences), poverty (percent of those who live in poverty), income, deteriorating neighbourhood, and population loss (percent of those who leave due to deterioration) are mechanisms that leads to the absence of informal social control and increases social disorganization, causing the loss of control over youths who then hang out at spontaneous playgrounds and form gangs with delinquent traditions that get passed down through cultural transmission. If such was the case, then one would expect neighbourhoods with similar and comparable local conditions to have similar average rates of crimes. However,

Frank Schmalleger explains the theory of social disorganization as one that depicts both social change as well as conflict, and lack of any agreement as the origin of its cause for both criminal behavior as well as nonconformity to society and closed associated with the ecological school of criminology (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 152). The philosophy behind the organization and structure of a society and how that contributes to criminal behavior within society is by stressing poverty, economic conditions, lack of education, lack of skills, are not sought-after in the work place, and divergent cultural values. Criminal behavior is the result of the person’s assignment of location within the structure of society.

The introduction of an integrative theory that analyzes the traits of locations and the people in the locations, rather than the people themselves. It claims that deviant behavior is more prevalent in areas that are poorer (Barak, 2002). Life has many daily strains and most do not lead to criminality but the greater the negative reaction, the higher the probability for criminality. Also, a negative reaction perpetuates further negative reactions which leads to a higher probability of criminal activities,

Social disorganization theory explains the ecological difference in levels of crime, simply based on cultural and structural factors that influence the social order in a given community. Social disorganization is triggered by poverty, social stability, ethnic heterogeneity, and a few key elements. Although Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay (1942), were known for social disorganization theory, in 1947 Edwin Sutherland introduced the notion of a ecological differences in crime that is the result of differential social organization. Despite similar arguments on social organization, Shaw and Mckay argued that the cultural integration explained the ecological variation in crime rates as a result of the negative impact on the community. Also elaborating on structural socioeconomic factors shaping informal control like poverty, heterogeneity, and residential mobility. Later Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989), refined the work of Shaw and Mckay by highlighting on the importance of social ties and new measures of social disorganization.

The deviant place theory deals strictly with a specific area known as the “bad” areas. Living in a neighborhood with low income or conditions showing bad reputations exhibits big roles of said crimes and deviance. These types of neighborhoods have all kinds of individuals that move in and move out consistently. Because replacements of people occur in this location, then it “fits” the location itself as being deviant and portraying bad behaviors. These type of neighborhoods involve the poor, overcrowded, less supervised, higher conflicts, etc. – which forces individuals to manage relations with one another and to their physical surroundings of the location. (1990) This “bad” area exposes its own dangerous location and makes an individual more susceptible to becoming a victim of a crime. This victimization is not coming from the victim itself, but rather the result of being in such “bad” areas. Gangs are a great example of a deviant neighborhood that would therefore come with a greater crime rate. The only way not to become a victim of this deviant location would be to move from said

The ecological theory of crime, also known as social disorganisation of crime is a theory used to describe the difference in crime in association with physical environmental factors such as cultural and structural factors. In the 1970’s and 1980’s the term ‘environmental criminology’ was used until it became associated with environmental issues. This theory can also be defined as a positivist theory because it seeks to find out about human behaviour. For the ecological theory the causes of crime for example are found in the way of the physical environment, where people live and socially interact. This is what creates the conditions for criminal and non-criminal behaviour.