Does social capital deter youth from cheating, alcohol use, and violence in Turkey?: Bringing torpil in

Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

Does social capital deter youth from cheating, alcohol use, and violence in Turkey?: Bringing torpil in Özden Özbay ⁎ Department of Sociology, Nigde University, Nigde, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t The objective of this study was to explore the link between social capital and cheating, alcohol use, and violence using a self-reported survey involving a sample of Turkish university students. The relatively comprehensive measures of social capital included both parental social capital (membership in organizations, political engagement, book/newspaper readership, parental control over the youth's social network, and religion) and youth social capital (civic intolerance, religion, influential connection, social exchange among classmates, membership in organizations, trust, and voting). Findings tended to indicate that most social capital measures were not consistently significant and that social capital had both negative and positive aspects. Social capital deprivation, a ‘new’ concept, was for the first time used and tested: it had a positive impact on deviant behavior. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The application of social capital in social science research had become a fashion in recent years. Criminologists, hence, had started to employ it in studies concerning delinquency, deviance, or crime. Social capital had triggered some analogical extensions to criminal, religious, and linguistic capitals, to mention a few. In spite of this, according to James Coleman (1988, 1994) who was one of the known creators of the concept, there were four types of capital: physical, human, monetary, and social. The present study focused only on one of them, social capital. The most prominent advantage of focusing on social capital as distinct from physical, human, and monetary capitals was its assumed lower costs and its presence in the interactions between and among individuals. Aggregate studies used such unit of analysis as neighborhood (Browning, Feinberg, & Dietz, 2004; Martin, 2002; Putnam, 2001; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), county (Beyerlein & Hipp, 2005; Lee & Bartkowski, 2004a, 2004b; Lee & Ousey, 2005), region (Gatti, Tremblay, & Larocque, 2003; Messner, Baumer, & Rosenfeld, 2004; Rosenfeld, Messner, & Baumer, 2001), state (Galea, Karpatti, & Kennedy, 2002; Kennedy, Kawachi, Prothrow-Stith, Lochner, & Gupta, 1998; Putnam, 2001), or across countries (Lederman, Loayza, & Menendez, 2002). The dependent variable was mostly violence (homicide). One major reason for selection of homicide was its high validity and reliablity in comparison to reporting and recording of other types of crime in general. These studies utilized very few social

⁎ Tel.: +90 534 394 4910; fax: +90 388 225 0180. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0047-2352/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.07.006

capital measures which were only trust and membership in civic organizations. Studies on the link between social capital and crime at the aggregate level were generally done in the United States (with the exception of Gatti et al., 2003). The findings of the aggregate studies tended to show that an increase in social capital was related to a decrease in the crime rate. There had been a few studies on the link between social capital and social deviance or crime at the individual level (Katz, 2002; McCarthy, Hagan, & Martin, 2002; McNeal, 1999; McNulty & Bellair, 2003; Salmi & Kivivuori, 2006; Villarreal & Silva, 2006; D. R. Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2006; J. P. Wright, Cullen, & Miller, 2001). Likewise, only one study was carried out in Turkey (Adaman & Çarkoğlu, 2003). When all the studies were critically examined, the findings were mixed at best, even within the same study. Some research indicated that an increase in social capital was related to a decrease in crime (Adaman & Çarkoğlu, 2003; McNeal, 1999; McNulty & Bellair, 2003; Salmi & Kivivuori, 2006; D. R. Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2006; J. P. Wright et al., 2001), some other research showed that an increase in social capital was related to a parallel increase in crime (Adaman & Çarkoğlu, 2003; Katz, 2002; McCarthy et al., 2002; McNeal, 1999; Salmi & Kivivuori, 2006; D. R. Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2006). Still some others did not find any relationship between the two concepts (Adaman & Çarkoğlu, 2003; Katz, 2002; McCarthy et al., 2002; McNulty & Bellair, 2003; Villarreal & Silva, 2006; D. R. Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2006). An overview of the social capital-deviance literature pointed out that, first, the impact of social capital on deviance was not uniform on the basis of the individual studies. Second, the link between social capital and deviance had been generally tested at the macro level; for example, neighborhood, county, city, region, state, or country. Studies

404

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

at the individual level had been rare up until now. Third, according to the social capital literature, there were two types of social capital: positive and negative. Scholars had generally emphasized only the beneficial outcomes of social capital (e.g., reduction of crime), giving lip service to its harmful consequences (e.g., production of crime). It was argued that the impact of social capital on deviance, however, was complex and determined mainly by its two dimensions, bonding and bridging social capitals. Fourth, the existing studies were limited mostly to Western societies. Last but not least, no study had ever used the notion of “social capital deprivation,” which meant that those individuals who did not have influential “social connections” felt comparatively deprived, and hence, pressured to get involved in deviant behavior. Unlike relative deprivation which had an exclusive focus on monetary-based deprivation, social capital deprivation had an exclusive focus on the absence (or weakness) of social network. It is expected that the present article will contribute to the existing literature in the following ways: first, while the current article does not aim to solve the dilemma of the contradictory finding that social capital has both positive and negative impacts on crime, it contributes to this issue by showing which specific types (or dimensions) of social capital have positive or negative influences on crime at the individual level. Second, unlike most of the previous research, the unit of analysis is based on individuals. Third, in addition to positive social capital, culture-specific measures of negative social capital were also especially used to get a complete understanding of the concept. Fourth, the use of a new concept, social capital deprivation, is the most important contribution of the current article to strain, social bonding, and social disorganization theories specifically, and criminological literature in general. What is social capital? Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti (1993, p. 167), following Coleman (1988, 1994), defined social capital1 as “features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that could improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions.” Putnam et al. (1993) operationalized social capital with four indicators which were labeled as civicness at the community level. These were associational life (e.g., membership in organizations), political participation (e.g., voting), preference voting, and newspaper readership. Putnam et al.'s twentyyear study of Italy showed that the more civic-minded regions of Italy (the North) had more economic development and more efficient government entities. More pertinent to the present study was that although Putnam et al. did not explore the link between community civicness and crime, he did claim that the more civic-minded regions were also more likely to be free from criminal actions. There are four types of capital: physical (tools), human (education), monetary (money), and social (trust, norms, and reciprocity).2 According to Coleman (1988), social capital is akin to physical and human capital because it facilitates the realization of specific goals which would not be viable when it is not present. Similiar to other capitals, it is not fully productive in all activities, but may be bound to specific activities. More specifically, social capital, on the one hand, can be beneficial for making specific actions easier, but on the other hand, it may not be useful for other actions. Social capital, however, differs from physical and human capital in the sense that it is structurally inherent in the interactions between and among individuals. That is, it is not inherent in individuals themselves or in the physical tools of production. In addition to its positive (deterrent) effect on crime, efficient government, and economic development, it can be argued that social capital has a number of beneficial outcomes; for instance, well being, better health, educational success, employment, and status attainment, to mention a few. Prominent scholars of social capital, however, claimed that there was a dark or negative side to it. In Portes' (1996, p. 21) own words, “it [social capital] cut both ways.” Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993)

identified three general negative aspects of social capital. These were the free-riding problem, the limitations on freedom, and the interruption of social mobility. Similarly, Fukuyama (1996) asserted that a high degree of social capital could lead to corruption (as well as rent seeking and drug trading; see Rubio, 1997). A fourth negative result of social capital, therefore, was criminal behavior. It is claimed that social capital has two important dimensions: bonding and bridging. Bonding social capital corresponds to the solidarity among individuals only within the same small group. Solidarity takes place in terms of the demands and benefits of the group members only. This type of bonding also occurs in homogenous rather than heterogeneous groups. Bridging social capital, on the other hand, occurs among individuals who have “weak” ties in a heterogeneous group structure. In comparision to bonding social capital, bridging social capital is hard to realize because people generally do not tend to see things beyond their close social groups (Beyerlein & Hipp, 2005; Messner et al., 2004; Wuthnow, 2002). In this respect, it is expected that the bonding social capital will have a positive influence on deviant acts. Criminological theories about social capital: social bonding, social disorganization, and strain theories While social disorganization theory gives the primary importance to social institutions (e.g., family, church) in the integration and regulation of individuals at the community level, social bonding theory reduces the same concern to certain institutions and groups (Krohn, 2001). Likewise, both social disorganization and anomie theories share a central argument that when there is not an agreement on the norms and values of a society and less social solidarity among its individuals or a breakdown in social control, the society is seen as disorganized or anomic (Akers & Sellers, 2004). In other words, for social disorganization, social bonding, and anomie/strain theories, the view that social disintegration will produce deviance occupies a central place. Social capital, as mentioned, is characterized by three basic components: norms of reciprocity (generalized reciprocity—desirable one—as opposed to specific reciprocity), networks of civic engagement (horizontal network—desirable one—as opposed to vertical network), and trust (an outcome of the first two components). According to Putnam et al. (1993), “Norms were incalculated and sustained by modeling and socialization (including civic education) and by sanctions” (p. 171). When there exists a greater degree of both horizontal network and generalized reciprocity, there will be greater social capital, and hence a stronger organization or community. In this sense, if social capital is weak or absent, it will lead to the occurence of a criminal act. Criminologists have drawn a link between social capital and three criminological theories such as strain/anomie, social disorganization, and social bonding theories (e.g., Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003; Messner et al., 2004; Rose & Clear, 1998; Rosenfeld et al., 2001; Salmi & Kivivuori, 2006). The core thesis of social disorganization theory is that deficiencies in informal social control lead to criminal behavior (Rosenfeld et al., 2001). According to the original formulation of social disorganization theory (Messner et al., 2004), communities with a lack of social organization have the characteristics of a heteregenous population, unstable residence, and a deprived economic situation. It is argued that these factors prevent the progression of primary and secondary social ties among individuals and between communities. As a result of the absence of social networks, community social control over an individual's act is diminished. According to Messner et al. (2004), trust and civic engagement are related, to a great extent, to social disorganization theory. The core thesis of social bonding theory (Hirschi, 1969) is that when an individual's bond to society is weak or broken, it will result in a criminal act. The social bond includes four fundamental elements:

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

attachment to parents, teachers, and peers; commitment to conventional kinds of action (e.g., education); involvement in conventional activities (e.g., sports); and belief in the importance of moral norms. Hirschi (1969) argued that if youths were strongly attached to parents, peers, and teachers, committed to a conventional kind of action, involved in conventional activities, and believed in the validity of moral values, they would be less likely to commit delinquent acts. Such an understanding of social bonding, also, was relevant to the civic engagement, norms of reciprocity, and trust components of social capital. The core thesis of strain theory (Merton, 1968) is that the gap between a culturally imposed monetary goal and a limited (or absent) means to reach the monetary goal will lead to criminal behavior among the lower class. A combination of social capital and strain theory is explained in detail below. Relative social capital deprivation The main thesis of the strain perspective in general is that when an individual with a lack of monetary resources is blocked from the realization of the cherished aims of a society (being rich or having a prestigious job), the individual will tend to choose crime among other possible courses of action (Merton, 1968). Although Merton did not specifically use the relative deprivation concept in his classic strain theory, the intellectual origin of the concept came from classic strain theory. It is argued that the core of the strain perspective is the notion that crime is a consequence of a sense of deprivation (Burton, Cullen, Evans, & Dunaway, 1994). Relative deprivation theorists hypothesize that social inequality at the structural level results in feelings of deprivation and frustration at the group level. This, in turn, can lead to crime. Stated differently, strain exists when an individual compares their relative material attainments against other individuals who are within his/her reference group (Burton & Dunaway, 1994). Even though some criminologists made references to the possible relationship between social capital and strain (Lee & Bartkowski, 2004a; Rosenfeld et al., 2001), these criminologists did not explicitly connect (or test) relative deprivation with the social capital notion. For instance, Rosenfeld et al. (2001) stated: In some respects social capital served as a resource like other forms of capital. Hence, a low stock of social capital could be viewed as another form of deprivation along with poverty, joblessness, and limited education...If the available stock of social capital was not sufficent for goal attainment, then classic strain theories of crime would predict higher rates of crime and delinquency...(p. 287) Likewise, Siegel (1995) mentioned in his criminology textbook about the notion of social capital deprivation without explicit use of the concept: When people compared themselves to peers who seemed to be doing a lot better financially or socially (such as making more money or getting better grades), even those doing relatively well feel strain. For example, they got into college but not into a prestige school, like some of their friends. Perhaps they were not being treated fairly because the ‘playing field’ was titled against them; ‘Other kids had connections,’ they said. (p. 191) Although the social capital-crime literature made references either implicitly or explicitly about the notion of relative social capital deprivation, no criminologist, to the author's knowledge, specifically named and tested the concept of social capital deprivation. In line with the strain perspective, it was hypothesized that the presence of relative social capital deprivation3 would lead to a greater propensity towards deviance.

405

Social capital in Turkey According to Putnam et al. (1993), social capital is composed of three things: social trust, norms of reciprocity, and networks of civic engagement. Social trust originates from both norms of reciprocity and networks of civic engagement. Norms are taught and maintained via socialization and sanctions. Reciprocity is one of the major norms. There are two types of reciprocity: specific and general. Specific reciprocity corresponds to an equal value item exchange at the same time; for example, holiday gift giving especially among individuals that are not close. Generalized reciprocity corresponds to reciprocal expectations that a favor will be paid back in the far future; for example, maternal care for a child. In contrast to specific reciprocity, generalized reciprocity is expected to produce a high level of positive social capital. There are two types of networks: vertical (a hierarchical relationship) and horizontal (a non-hierarchical one). It is asserted that the networks of civic engagement composed of the dense horizontal social relationships are a very beneficial type of social capital. In short, it is assumed that a higher level of social trust, a norm of generalized reciprocity, and a horizontal network of civic engagement are related to the more useful aspects of social capital. When this notion of social capital was applied in the context of Turkish society, the following partial explanations appeared to be in existence from the scholarly studies in Turkey. On the issue of social trust, according to the World Value Survey (Inglehart as cited in Allık & Realo, 2004), 10 percent of Turkish individuals displayed lack of trust in one another (interestingly, when the exact same question was used in the present study, about 9 percent of the youth showed a lack of trust; see Table 1). It was claimed that the low degree of general social capital (bridging) resulted mostly in exclusive ties where a limited social capital (bonding) was created and maintained within the context of a weak state in terms of production and enforcement of laws (Adaman & Çarkoğlu, 2003). It was thought that the low level of social trust would result in low social capital in Turkey. As for civic engagement, the Turkish political culture continues to be traditional in the sense that authority has priority over the empowerment and participation of its citizens (Kubicek, 2002). Compared to civil society in the Western world which is based on formal contracts, the civil society in Turkey rests generally on mutual trust, reciprocity, and informal bonds.4 Even though the number of civic organizations is increasing, it is questionable whether they have a real strong impact on social and political life owing to their lack of freedom and autonomy from such powerful institutions as the military or the state (Karaman & Aras, 2000; Kubicek, 2002; Şimşek, 2004). Due to the rigid relationships between state and civil society, as well as global changes in the world, informal networks are inclined to play a more important role than formal networks among Turkish people (Erder, 2002). With respect to voting behavior which is an important additional indicator of civic engagement, it was claimed that Turkish politics could be generally explained best by the notion of the center versus the periphery since the 1950s. The center corresponds to a coherent group of laicist, nationalist, and centralist elite who consider themselves as the representatives and the protectors of the Turkish state. The periphery, in contrast, is seen as being composed of a variety of regional, religious, and ethnic groups who are in conflict with the center (Kalaycıoğlu, 1994). It is argued that there has been an increasing tendency toward nationalist and religious parties to the detriment of the center political parties in the last ten years in Turkey (Başlevent, Kirmanoğlu, & Şenatalar, 2005). In discussing the determinants of the electoral behavior of the voters, Turkish scholars have indicated that left-right ideology (Esmer as cited in Başlevent et al., 2005; Özcan, 2000), religion (Başlevent et al., 2005; Kalaycıoğlu, 1994; Özcan, 2000), sect (Başlevent et al., 2005), ethnicity (Başlevent et al., 2005), region (Kalaycıoğlu, 1994; Özcan, 2000), parental political affiliation (Özcan, 2000), and patron-client relations (Kalaycıoğlu, 1994) were important factors in relation to both the local and general

406

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

Torpil (influential connections): a key to social relations in Turkey

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the variables Variables

Percentage (%) Sample sizea

Cheating ( = yes) Alcohol use ( = yes) Political violence ( = yes) Other violence ( = yes)

38.1 33.9 8.5 26.5

969 955 965 955

– 50.4 –

956 957 844 933

Independent variables Age (log) Gender ( = male) Family total income (log) Mother education Less than high school High school College and university Father education Less than high school High school College and university Place of residence of parents ( = countryside) Household size (log) Internet use ( = no) Time spent on TV watching ( = four or more hours) Possession of mobile telephone ( = yes) Mother membership in organization ( = yes) Father membership in organization ( = yes) Mother politics ( = yes) Father politics ( = yes) Parents regularly read books/newspapers (index) Parental control over children's friends/partners (index) Family talks with friends/neighbors on religion (index) Civic intolerance (index) Talks with friends on religion ( = yes) Ever torpil (“connections”) ( = yes) Definition – torpil index ( = positive) Social capital deprivation ( = yes) Methods of studying classes Alone Group Both individually and in group (mixed) Methods of obtaining reading materials Myself Close friends Both myself and my friends (mixed) “Helping” friends during exams ( = yes) Membership in organization ( = yes) Trust Trust (index) Trust (World Value Survey) “I can trust most people” “It is necessary to be very careful” Trust (Turkish proverb) “Even you should not trust your father” ( = yes) Voting General election ( = yes) Local election (municipal) ( = yes) a b

77.3 13.8 4.8 930 57.2 21.6 16.8 40.5 – 31.6 32.1 95.9 10.2 11.1 44.3 64.6 4-8b 0-6b 0-2b 3-12b 73.6 36.5 52.9 50.1

965 943 973 935 972 946 930 814 748 854 913 891 939 927 967 927 963 965

66.3 4.0 28.9 968 44.5 15.3 39.7 57.7 10.3 3-35b

963 966 973 937

8.6 87.7 972 36.9 48.7 54.8

927 945

Based on final sample. Minimum and maximum values.

elections up until now. All of these seemed to suggest that the vertical (hierarchical) type of social network and restricted social trust (e.g., toward only one's own group) would exist. In other words, bonding kind of social capital was mostly taking place among Turkish individuals. In summary, it was believed that social capital in the context of Turkey was characterized by low social trust, low civic engagement in organizations, and preferential voting. In other words, the Turkish society was marked by low social capital. The relationship among the individuals also was dominated by the bonding social capital, valuing one's own group at the expense of the others. The description on ‘torpil’ (connection) below, a key to understanding social relations in Turkey, gives further support for the negative or bonding type of social capital.

Torpil is a concept which is very often used in the Turkish daily language in relation to such topics as status attainment and social mobility in general, and it specifically refers to having ties with influential people (like political party representatives) to obtain a personal gain (private good). For example, when a person graduates from a Turkish university with a low profile, the person cannot get a job and becomes unemployed for some time. The most common solution to overcome this problem in practice is to go to a party representative with the help of, say, relatives to get a position (especially in a state institution). This can happen not only for individuals with a low quality education but also for individuals with a medium or high quality education, depending on who you know. In other words, the system does not discriminate much on the basis of quality. What it generally discriminates is whether a person has ‘torpil’ (connection) or not. Even if the person has it, then the competition among torpil givers will determine the final outcome. It is claimed that this kind of patron-client relations leads to both corruption and exclusion, producing resentments among clients (for a more theoretical and historical treatment of the patron-client relationships in Turkey, see Güneş-Ayata, 1994). Torpil is generally implemented in one or in several combinations of ways such as blood/familial (having an influential family member or relatives), ethnic (belonging to a Kurdish group, a Turkish group, etc.), political (being a rightist or a leftist), religious (identifying with this or that brotherhood), or locational ties (being from the same village, town, and city or not) or sometimes it can even be described by use of money as a bribe (see Buğra, 2003 for a similiar thought). That is, the means of torpil can be both monetary and nonmonetary. The power relationship between the “torpil receiver” (those who receive the “help” or “favor”) and the “torpil giver” (those who give the “help” or “favor”) is assymetrical or hiearchical (it is highly possible to have a “torpil-middle man” which the following paragraphs imply). It is thought that having a ‘torpil’ or 'connection' as a way to solve ‘personal’ problems with the mobilization of the existing ties or the creation of new social ones is against the concept of meritocracy, and therefore, shows a ‘selfish’ and ‘unfair’ way of obtaining personal gains (bonding social capital) at the expense of the overall good of society (bridging social capital). In this sense, this type of relationship represents the dark or negative side of social capital. Torpil, likewise, is a type of patron-client relationship which is a vertical type of social relationship as opposed to a horizontal (hierarchical) one as Putnam et al. (1993) claimed: Any society—modern or traditional, authoritarian or democratic, feudal or capitalist—was characterized by networks of interpersonal communication and exchange, both formal and informal. Some of these networks were primarily ‘horizontal,’ bringing together agents of equivalent status and power. Others were primarily ‘vertical,’ linking unequal agents in asymmetric relations of hierarchy and dependence. In the real world, of course, almost all networks are mixes of the horizontal and the vertical...A vertical network...cannot sustain social trust and cooperation... Dense but segregated horizontal networks sustain cooperation within each group, but networks of civic engagement that cut across social cleavages nourish wider cooperation. (emphasis in original) (pp. 173-175) All in all, it was believed that torpil had the characteristics of low social trust, weak reciprocity, and less civic engagement, and high preferential voting. It, thus, was hypothesized that torpil had a positive impact on deviant behaviors in agreement with the recent emphasis on the dark side of social capital (bonding dimension) in the literature of social capital (e.g., Putnam, 2001).

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

Link between deviance and social capital Salmi and Kivivuori (2006) studied the link between social capital and juvenile crime in a national sample of 5,142 adolescents aged fifteen and sixteen in Finland in a cross-sectional study.5 Their dependent variable was engagement in at least five offenses in a past year. Salmi and Kivivuori also operationalized social capital by family support, family control, teacher support, teacher control, neighborhood control, school-related intergenerational closure (one student's parent spent time with the parent of the other students), labor market access-related intergenerational closure (family's use of their connections to obtain a part-time job for their child). In general, the scholars reported that a decrease in social capital was related to an increase in delinquent acts. Salmi and Kivivuori, however, also found that a low level of labor market access-related intergenerational social closure was related inversely to juvenile crime. Villarreal and Silva (2006) explored the association of social cohesion with both criminal victimizaton and perceived risk of crime among 3,873 respondents aged fourteen to eighty-nine in 197 neighborhoods of the fourth largest city in Brazil using multilevel regression models in a cross-sectional study. Criminal victimizaton was measured by being victims of assault and robbery. Perceived risk of crime was measured by the risk for being victimized in relation to robbery, harm, kidnapping, and wounding. Social cohesion was operationalized by the level of trust and guardianship. In opposition to social disorganization theory, Villarreal and Silva's study indicated that an increase in social cohesion was associated with an increase in the victimization rate. More importantly, the scholars found that social cohesion was not related to the offending act in the neighborhood. D. R. Wright and Fitzpatrick (2006) focused on the relationships between social capital and violent behavior in a national sample of middle school students aged thirteen to nineteen (n = 4,834) in the United States in a cross-sectional study. A violent act index was composed of both fighting/aggression and the use of weapons. Three broad social capital variables were measured by family (family-child relations and family direct and indirect social control), school (affiliation with school, involvement in sports and clubs), and neighborhood (participation in religious activities and involvement with neighbors). The scholars reported that a decrease in the measures of parent-child relationships, family control, affiliation with school, and participation in religious activities was related to an increase in adolescent violent acts, independent of the effects of demographic, family, school, and neighborhood attainment factors. Involvement with neighbors (degree of care and contact in the neighborhood), nevertheless, was not statistically significant. More importantly, both participation in clubs and sports had an unexpected positive influence (instead of a negative one) on violence. McNulty and Bellair (2003) investigated the association between family social capital and violence among juveniles (n = 14,358) in the United States using a longitudinal research design. The dependent variable was physical fighting when the adolescents were at their school or when they left or came to school in a prior year. Social capital was measured by three indicators: parents' knowledge of the parents of the friends of their children, parents' interaction at school, and adolescent's interaction with mature people. The study indicated that except for the parent's interaction at school, which was not significant, the other two social capital variables were associated inversely with fighting, as expected from a social capital perspective. Katz (2002) explored the association between the number of hours worked as a measure of social capital and fighting at school, and substance abuse (alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine) in a national sample of adolescents (n = 14,915) in the United States employing a longitudinal research design. It was concluded that the number of hours worked mostly did not have any direct impact on both fighting at school and substance abuse. The only direct impact was the positive association between number of hours worked and subtance abuse involving cocaine.

407

McCarthy et al. (2002) examined the influence of fictitious families and alternative street group relationships as an indicator of social capital on such criminal acts as violent street victimization, violent street offending, and group offending (drug use, stealing food, shoplifting, and stealing from others) among 480 street youths in Toronto and Vancouver in Canada via a cross-sectional study. Whereas having a fictive family was associated inversely with violent street victimization, it was not associated with both violent street offending and group offending. Although alternative street group relationships was associated positively with violent street offending, it was not associated with both violent street victimization and group offending. J. P. Wright et al. (2001) investigated the relationship between family social capital and delinquent acts among the adolescents in the United States (n = 1,725, National Youth Survey data) through a longitudinal study. Delinquent behavior was measured by delinquency scales. Family social capital index was composed of three indicators: the amount of time the child spent with his parents in terms of playing, talking, and working; parental attachment; and the disapproval of delinquency by the families. J. P. Wright et al. found that an increase in family social capital was related to a decrease in delinquency across time. Their study also showed that family social capital had a significant negative influence on drug use and criminal friends. Finally, J. P. Wright et al. indicated that it had positive impacts on such other issues as health, exercise, and job role commitment. McNeal (1999) explored the association between delinquent behavior and social capital among adolescents (n1 = 11,401, n2 = 15,663) in the United States in a longitudinal study. Delinquent behavior was measured by two indicators: truancy and dropout rate. Social capital was measured by parental involvement. Parental involvement, in turn, was operationalized by four indicators: parent-child discussions, family engagement in parent-child organizations, family control, and parental engagement in educational practices. The findings generally supported the conclusion that social capital had an inverse impact on deviant behavior. McNeal's study, however, also revealed that parental engagement in the educational progress of their children had a positive impact on delinquency. There has been only one study on the relationship between social capital and crime in Turkey. Adaman and Çarkoğlu (2003) explored the link between social capital and corruption in a random sample of business people (n = 1,219) in twelve cities in Turkey in a crosssectional study. Corruption, as an indicator of crime, was measured by four variables: perceptual frequency of corruption at state institutions, perceptual intensity of bribery at state institutions as a service provider, number of illicit payments to state institutions, and impartiality of state banks in the assessment of credit applications. Trust, as an indicator of social capital, was measured by business peoples' trust in people in general (general trust index) and in the business community (limited trust index). Their findings revealed that an increase in general trust (bridging social capital) was associated with decreases in the perceptual frequency of corruption at state institutions, the perceptual intensity of bribery at state institutions as a service provider, and the number of illicit payments to state institutions, independent of the impacts of limited trust (trust in fellow businessmen) and a group of demographic, attitudinal, and firm characteristics. An increase in limited trust (bonding social capital), nevertheless, was associated only with an increase in the impartiality of state banks in the assessment of credit applications. The above studies on the link between social capital and crime had several important deficiencies. First, they generally used very few social capital measures; for example, membership in organizations and trust. Second, the studies did not give a clear understanding of the direction of the association between social capital and crime. The present study used relatively more comprehansive and innovative measures of social capital. It was hoped that the study would shed some light on the existing ambigious relationship between social capital and deviance.

408

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

Research design Sample A sample of 974 students was selected from the population of the students attending a newly established university in a small city with a population of about 80,000 in 2004 in Turkey. The university had four major faculties (offering a four-year education) and three technical colleges (offering a two-year education), as well as some off-campus colleges. Both stratified and quota types of sampling strategies were used to select students for the analysis, the former for the faculties and the latter for the colleges. It was thought that one stage stratified sampling design would be more appropriate to use because the students chose their departments on the basis of the socioeconomic position of their families. To obtain a stratified sample, first, a complete list of students on the basis of their faculty, department, grade, and day-night time education was obtained from the administration of the relevant university. Second, using probability proportionate to size design, final sample sizes were obtained according to differences in relation to both day-night time and current year of education (from the first-year student to the fourthyear student). There was a problem of obtaining the exact number of the students at some technical colleges owing to both the nonattendance and the closing of some programs by the Turkish Higher Education Council. Quota sampling, therefore, was deemed more suitable to employ, and a pre-defined sample size (n = 450 which was 19 percent of the overall colleges) was used so that there would be enough cases for a separate analysis when it was needed. This sample size (n = 450) was allocated to each department on the basis of their proportion in the population of the colleges. In general, although the number of the participants in the original sampling was 1,304 students, the number of the students participated in the survey was 974 (the response rate being 75 percent). Although the response rate was low, no attempt was made to explore the reasons for the lack of participation. Data were obtained from students by means of a self-reported survey. Questionnaires were given to students mostly in a classroom setting under the supervision of the researcher. Students were ensured about the confidential and voluntary aspects of the survey. A pilot study was performed on a group of students so as to identify themes and to validate the questionnaire items that would be used. The overall sample was composed of 48 percent female, 50 percent male (2 percent being missing). Median age was twenty-one (ranged from seventeen to thirty-eight years old). Median income of the overall university students per month (n = 846) was 750 New Turkish Liras (US$504). In this study, 40.6 percent of the sample was below the median income (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). During the administration of the survey, state-defined minimum salary per month was 303 New Turkish Liras (US$204), and US$1 was equal to 1.487 New Turkish Liras. Measurement It was hard to say much about the reliability of the measures used in the current study because of the lack of similar studies and of longitudinal data on social capital and specific deviant acts in the present study. Concerning the validity of the measures, it was believed that the key variables (social capital and criminal behaviors) were valid enough in terms of face (logical) validity. More important, as for external validity, it was extremely hard to find a way to compare and contrast acts of criminal involvement (cheating, alcohol, and especially political violence in the present study) with official statistics. There were two possible reasons: first, cheating was leniently treated (mostly getting a zero for an exam when a cheating act occurred). Second, deviant acts were underreported: the institutional record of cheating would be much more less in number (not to mention the

institutional interest in hiding it). Likewise, when the political violence happened, its perpetrators mostly were the students with an ultra nationalist political ideology. Whenever these nationalist students were engaged in violence against their opponents (primarily Kurdish leftist youth as well as Turkish leftists), the criminal acts were not recoded due to the fact that both the university officials (including teachers) and the Turkish security officials had the similar political ideology with the students. As a result, unless the criminal act was very serious (e.g., stabbing, death), it was extremely hard to compare the number of particular criminal acts with an ‘objective’ external criteria. Dependent variables The dependent variables included four acts: cheating on exams (38 percent), alcohol use (34 percent), fighting for the purpose of gaining hegemonic political power on campus (9 percent), and fighting for some other reasons (not counting both fighting for gaining a hegemonic political power on campus and males' fighting for the same female) (27 percent). Logistic regression analysis was used because response categories for the above deviant behaviors ranged from 1 ( = yes) to 0 ( = no). Independent variables The following linking of social capital measures only with one theory should not be taken in a very strict fashion because strain, social disorganization, and social bonding theories overlapped to some extent. Among the measures of social capital used in the present study, relative social capital deprivation as well as torpil (connection) variables were consistent with the strain perspective; parental engagement in civic organizations and youth social trust were consistent with social disorganization theory; parental control over youth networks (e.g., family attachment), parental engagement in politics and youth engagement in civic organizations (e.g., involvement), family talks with friends/neighbors on religion, youth talks with friends on religion, and civic intolerance (e.g., belief), and reading books and newspapers by the parents, voting by the youth (attachment to society), and methods of studying classes and of obtaining materials (e.g., attachment to friends) were consistent with social bonding theory. If the issue was extended one step further, a positive definition toward ‘torpil’ could reflect differential association/social learning theories. Parental social capital Parental social capital was operationalized by five indicators. These were parents' membership in organizations, their political engagement, their books/newspaper readership, their religion, and their control over youth's networks. Membership in organization. Students were asked to indicate whether their mothers and fathers had memberships in organizations. Responses ranged from yes ( = 1) to no ( = 0). Political engagement was, according to the student's report, measured by asking where mothers and fathers stood on the political spectrum. Response categories were far right, right, left, far left, apolitical, and no opinion. According to Putnam et al. (1993), those regions with high political engagement in civic organizations were more likely to have greater economic development as well as other putative social benefits, say, lesser crime. Data used in the current study allowed a comparison of those who had an identification with politics (from far right to far left) with those with no political identification. This variable was dummy coded: parents who were not involved in politics were treated as the base category. Regular books/newspaper readership was an index composed of regular readership of books and newspaper by the parents of the

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

youth in a past year. Responses ranged from yes ( = 1) to no ( = 0). Summing up these reponses, a parental reading index was created with a Cronbach alpha of .73. Parental control over the youth's networks was operationalized by asking students whether their mothers and fathers determined who would be their friends, flirt-partners, and would-be wife or husband. Responses ranged from yes ( = 1) to no ( = 0). Comprised of six questionnaire items on this issue, a parental control index of the youth's network was produced (α = .77). Higher scores indicated higher parental network control of the youth's significant others. In contrast to Western societies, “excessive” social control over children or youth by the parents was very common in Turkish society. According to the data used in the present study, maternal control over the youth's networks (mother, elder sister, or someone in this position) included 35 percent of friends, 26 percent of flirt, and 49 percent of would-be marriage partners. Paternal control over the youth's network (father, elder brother, or someone in that position), likewise, covered 33 percent of friends, 20 percent flirt, and 41 percent would-be marriage partners. When the correlations between the above paternal and maternal items were examined, of the overall fifteen correlations, all were significant and positive. They ranged from .186 to .661 (ten out of the overall fifteen correlations were above .30). Whereas the lowest correlation was seen between maternal control over friendship and paternal control over flirt partner (r = .186), the highest one was observed between maternal control over marriage partner and paternal control over marriage partner (r = .661). Religion was measured by asking whether youths' mothers and fathers talked with their friends or neighbors on religious topics in a prior year. The question was asked separately of the father and mother. Responses ranged from yes ( = 1) to no ( = 0). The finding on the link between religion and crime in the West (the United States) showed that religion had a deterrent impact on crime if individuals lived in a religious social environment (Baier & Wright, 2001; Pearce & Haynie, 2004; Regnerus, 2003; Stark, 1996; Wallace, Moak, & Moore, 2005). Assuming that the measurement used in the present study reflected this group or network relations, a religious index was created with a Cronbach alpha of .71. Higher scores indicated higher religious tendency. Youth social capital Civic intolerance was measured by asking to what extent students would approve of classmates in terms of differences in political ideas, ethnic origin, and religious sect. Response categories ranged from completely agree ( = 1) to completely disagree ( = 4). Internal validity of the scale was .87. Higher scores of civic intolerance indicated greater civic intolerance. Religion was operationalized by asking whether students had talked with friends on the topic of religion in the previous year. Responses ranged from yes ( = 1) to no ( = 0). Similiar to the family religion question, the notion of ‘religious ecology’ was taken into consideration. Torpil (connections) was measured by three indicators: the first indicator was whether respondents had made any torpil in his life. Responses ranged from yes ( = 1) to no ( = 0). The group that had not utilized such a connection was used as the reference category. The second indicator of torpil was whether the youth approved or disapproved of torpil on an eleven-point scale, ranging from zero (completely disapproved) to one hundred (completely approved). Distribution of the values of the scale was skewed towards the left because 42 percent of the students chose zero. This index, as a result, was dummy coded, 1 for zero, 2 for ten through one hundred. Finally, social capital deprivation, one of the unique aspects of the present study, was measured by “If I had the opportunity to use torpil, I would have been more successful.” The variable was dummy coded, and those who did not agree with this statement were treated as the

409

reference category. One major problem with this way of measuring social capital deprivation was that it only corresponded to a single indicator. Social exchange among classmates was operationalized by asking two separate questions. The first question was related to how students studied in respect to their classwork. Response categories were alone, in a group, or both alone and in a group (mixed type). The second question was related to how students obtained their class materials. Response items were by myself, through close friends, or a combination of both (mixed type). These two indicators of the social exchange network among students were dummy coded, alone (or by myself) was treated as the reference category. Sampson and Laub (1995) claimed that social capital or social investment originated from strong social interactions or strong social ties. When such social relations were governed by interdependence, these relations corresponded to psychological and social resources which individuals could utilize over time. Helping friends during exams was measured by asking whether students had “helped” other students during exams in a prior year. If one student helped the other(s), it was coded as 1, otherwise as 0 (the reference category). Membership in organizations was operationalized by asking whether the respondents were a member of any civic organizations. Responses ranged from yes ( = 1) to no ( = 0). Nonmembership in organizations was used as the base category. Trust was measured by three different types of questions. First was an index which involved the degree to which respondents had trust in individuals and institutions. Included in the grouping for individuals were mother, father, sisters/brothers, close friends, parents’ neighbors, teachers, foreigners (people you do not know), shop owners as well as state institutions and politicians. Responses ranged from “never trust” ( = 1) to “complete trust” ( = 4). Internal reliabilty for the index was .71, and higher scores corresponded to higher trust. Second, following the social capital literature, a trust question which was the same as the trust question utilized by the World Value Survey was used alternatively with the response items, “most people were trustable,” or “should be very careful.” The latter was used as the reference category. This way of measurement was very problematic in the sense that it restricted the variation in the response items and should have included phrases like “all people were trustable” and “few people were trustable.” Lastly, utilizing a commonly used cultural proverb reflecting distrust in Turkey, “even you should not trust your father” was also employed as an alternate measure of trust. Original coding of the variable ranged from completely agree ( = 1) to completely disagree ( = 4). It was dummy coded, 1 for disagreement, 0 for agreement, the reference category. Interestingly, a correlation analysis among the three trust indicators did not indicate high correlation, implying that they measured different things. Voting was operationalized by asking whether students had cast a vote in the last general and local (municipal) elections. Responses for both the general and local elections ranged from yes ( = 1) to no ( = 0), the latter being the base category. The major variables above were measured with dichotomous questions (yes, no), which might not capture the variablity within the concept of social capital as well as the criminal behavior variables. Control variables Control variables were included so as to overcome any spurious relationships between independent and dependent variables in the study. They included age, gender, social class, place of residence of parents, household size, Internet use, amount of TV watching, and possession of a mobile telephone. Age was a continous variable and referred to a biological age. The variable was logged to overcome any possible impact of outliers in the data. Gender was a categorical variable, 1 for males and 0 for females (the reference category). Family

410

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

total income corresponded to the overall income brought into the home by family members who worked. Due to the skewed nature of the variable, its logarithm was taken. The education of mothers and fathers was grouped into three general categories: less than high school, high school, and college and university degrees. The variable was dummy coded, and those who had less than a high school education were used as the base category. Students were asked to report whether their families lived in rural or urban areas. The latter was treated as the reference category. The number of total household members was measured by how many people lived in the parental house (including those who had left the house on a temporary basis). In the literature of criminology, age, gender, and social class were considered very important variables and generally used as control variables. Among the above control variables, family income, parental education, place of parental residence, and household size could be considered as reflecting the social class situation of a student. In addition to these classical control variables, some other control variables pertaining to sociability of the youth also were included: students were asked to indicate whether they had used the Internet in the prior week. Responses ranged from yes ( = 1) to no ( = 0), with the former being the base category. Television watching, moreover, was operationalized by asking how many hours students spent watching television on a daily basis. This variable was dummy coded, those who had equal or less than the median hours (three hours) was the base category. Finally, ownership of a mobile telephone was measured by asking whether students owned a mobile phone. Those who did not own a mobile phone was used as the comparison category. The variables Internet use, TV watching, and possession of a mobile telephone were included in the analysis to eliminate the impacts of sociability. Scholars had debated whether communication technologies reduced or reinforced social relations among individuals (for a more detailed description, see DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001). Lastly, it was important to look at the construct validity of social capital measures; thus, they were tested using involvement in a sport in a prior year, general happiness, school success (logged failed classes), deviant friends, youth religion, and risk taking (see Table 2). Out of the total 138 correlations between the social capital measures and the above six different constructs, only thirty-six of them (26 percent) were statistically significant. The size of significant correlations as shown in Table 2 were low (ranging from a low of .067 to a high of .247) which implied the weakness of the associations between social capital variables and involvement in a sport, general happiness, school success (logged failed classes), deviant friends, youth religion, and risk taking. When the signs of the thirty-six significant associations in Table 2 were examined, social capital measures seemed to have both expected (e.g., social capital deprivation and having deviant friend were positively correlated) and unexpected results (e.g., youth's civic membership and having deviant friend were positively correlated). A zero-order correlation analysis also was done in order to see the nature of associations between some of the important independent variables in the study (see Table 3). In general, correlations varied from a low of 0 to a high of .72 (almost all correlations were below .30). More important, a question should be asked in relation to one of the core aspects of the study: what was the relationship between social capital deprivation and the other measures of social capital in the study? Correlation analysis indicated that the correlations between social capital deprivation and other measures varied from .001 to .126. Of the overall twenty correlations, only four correlations also were significant, and the strength of these associations was low (it ranged from .094 to .126 in absolute terms). These significant correlations indicated that whereas social capital deprivation, as expected, was negatively correlated with the general trust index, it was positively associated with civic intolerance, general, and local elections. Interestingly, although the concept social capital deprivation corre-

Table 2 Correlation analysis for the test of construct validity of social capital Social capital indicators

Various acts Sport

Parental social capital Mother membership in organization ( = yes) Father membership in organization ( = yes) Mother politics ( = yes) Father politics ( = yes) Parents regularly read books/newspapers Parental control over youth's network Family talks with friends, etc. on religion

General happiness

School failure

Deviant friend

Religion

Risk taking

.067 .086 .132 .106

Youth social capital Civic intolerance Talks with friends on religion ( = yes) Ever torpil (“connections”) ( = yes) Definition - torpil index .089 ( = positive) Social capital deprivation - .102 ( = yes) Methods of studying classes Group .071 Both individually and in group (mixed) Methods of obtaning reading materials Close friends .102 Both myself and my friends (mixed) “Helping” friends during .088 exams ( = yes) Membership in organization .112 ( = yes) Trust Trust (index) .073 .219 “I can trust most people” .069 (World Value Survey) “Even you should not .098 .141 trust your father” Voting General election ( = yes) .080 Local election (municipal) .100 ( = yes)

.080 .085

.096

.079 .247 .078

.072 - .068

.073

.073

.081

.094

.092

.109 .156

.115

- .069

.080 .095

sponded to the absence of the torpil in a relative sense, there was no association between the two variables (e.g., ever torpil and positive definition of torpil). It seemed that these unexpected bivariate findings questioned the validity of the concept of social capital deprivation. Main reasons for the validity problem in relation to almost all social capital measures possibly arose both from yes-no type response items and the use of a single indicator. Readers, therefore, should take these points into account while reading the rest of the study. All in all, the ultimate aim of the study was exploratory. Results The relationships between the dependent and independent variables which were statistically significant only at the .05 and .01 levels are described in the following section. The only exception for these criteria was relative social capital deprivation which was evaluated at the .10 level. The reason for this was that a stricter use of alpha level might dismiss an existing relationship. The associations between social capital variables and cheating, use of alcohol, political, and other violence (not counting politics- and flirtation-related violence) are presented below.

– – .715⁎ – .009 .038

Among the parental social capital variables, none of them were statistically significant, independent of the influences of age, gender, family total income, parental educational level, place of residence, household size, Internet use, TV watching, and mobile phone use (see Table 4). Among the youth social capital variables, ‘torpil’ (influential Table 4 Logistic regression analysis of social capital and cheating (n = 409)

– .002 .019 - .027 .103⁎ .119⁎

Background Age (log) Gender ( = male) Family total income (log) Mother education High school College and university Father education High school College and university Place of residence of parents (=countryside) Household size (log) Internet use ( = no) Time spent on TV watching ( = four or more hours) Possession of mobile telephone ( = yes)

– .010 .035 .063 - .027 .047 - .035 - .021

– .041 - .025 .014 .019 - .028 - .004

Variables

– - .347⁎ .037 .052 - .009 .012 .011 .056 .043

B

Exp (B)

B

1.147 .275 - 1.366

3.150 1.317 .255⁎⁎

.647 .242 - 1.335

Model X2 Cox and Snell Nagelkerke

1.911 1.274 .263⁎⁎

1.158 1.547

- .136 .348

.873 1.417

.150 .201 - .227 1.425 - .171 .511

1.162 1.223 .797 4.159⁎ .843 1.667⁎

.032 .060 - .174 1.149 - .036 .521

1.032 1.062 .840 3.154 .964 1.683⁎

- 1.073

.342

- 1.077

.341

- .086 .418 - .262 - .380 .033

.917 1.519 .770 .684 1.033

- .237 .277 - .187 - .422 - .004

.789 1.320 .830 .656 .996

.045

1.046

.047

1.048

.054

1.055

.080

1.084

- .039 .543 .584 .201 .030

.962 1.721 1.794⁎ 1.222 1.030

- .022 .528 .644 .246 .123

.978 1.695 1.904⁎ 1.279 1.131

- .361 .221

.697 1.247

- .183 .161

.832 1.175

1.113 .852 2.287 - .799

3.042⁎⁎ 2.344⁎⁎ 9.845⁎⁎ .450⁎

1.068 .847 2.383 - .598

2.910⁎⁎ 2.332⁎⁎ 10.836⁎⁎ .550

.005 - .271

1.005 .762

- .007 - .254

.993 .775

.066

1.068

.085

1.089

.115

1.122 –

Youth social capital Civic intolerance (index) Talks with friends on religion ( = yes) Ever torpil (“connections”) ( = yes) Definition - torpil index ( = positive) Social capital deprivation ( = yes) Methods of studying classes Group Both individually and in group (mixed) Methods of obtaining reading materials Close friends Both myself and my friends (mixed) “Helping” friends during exams ( = yes) Membership in organization ( = yes) Trust Trust (index) “I can trust most people” (World Value Survey) “Even you should not trust your father” Voting General election ( = yes) Local election (municipal) ( = yes) – Constant

Exp (B)

.146 .437

Parental social capital Mother membership in organization (= yes) Father membership in organization ( = yes) Mother politics ( = yes) Father politics ( = yes) Parents regularly read books/newspapers (index) Parental control over children's friends/ partners (index) Family talks with friends/neighbors on religion (index)

⁎p ≤ = .05. a Due to space limitation, both the dependent and the control variables were not included.

– - .001 .161⁎ .051 .015 .041 .051 .026 - .038 - .017 – - .132⁎ .117⁎ - .039 .024 .036 .014 - .041 .037 .013 .029 – - .028 - .034 .027 - .026 .021 .004 - .108⁎ - .060 - .048 .126⁎ .099⁎ – - .054 - .022 .003 - .006 .024 - .087⁎ - .018 .087⁎ .033 .016 .000 - .010 – - .285⁎ .060 .039 .057 .112⁎ - .016 .156⁎ .087⁎ - .060 - .018 .050 .022 .027 – .062 .013 - .020 .032 .042 - .079⁎ .107⁎ .011 - .019 .020 .058 - .004 - .079⁎ - .025 – .017 .040 - .126⁎ .094⁎ - .018 - .050 .000 - .026 .001 - .077⁎ - .132⁎ - .023 .001 - .013 - .004 – .030 .271⁎ - .028 .011 .005 .027 - .010 - .004 .030 .041 .017 - .004 - .020 .060 .038 .052 – - .032 - .104⁎ - .016 .011 .042 - .029 .026 .056 .077⁎ .012 .019 .055 .048 .065 .075⁎ .023 .016 – - .128⁎ .038 - .006 - .078⁎ .039 - .126⁎ - .033 .067 - .034 .007 - .046 .069⁎ .088⁎ .017 - .063 - .017 .074⁎ .024 – .040 .010 .063 .001 .011 .069 - .113⁎ .001 - .046 - .021 .062 .005 .061 .053 .095⁎ .025 - .044 .061 .099⁎ – .469⁎ .187⁎ - .041 .046 .064 - .029 .104⁎ - .110⁎ - .022 - .006 - .008 .100⁎ - .033 .112⁎ .083⁎ .091⁎ .056 .012 .074⁎ .118⁎ – .093⁎ .012 .179⁎ - .084⁎ .068⁎ - .005 - .034 .077⁎ - .034 - .028 .027 - .009 .036 .018 .064 .145⁎ .001 - .019 - .014 .004 - .016

411

Cheating

– .115⁎ .223⁎ - .003 .032

– .084⁎ - .053 .010

23 21 18 14 12 10 8 7 6 3

– .279⁎ .112⁎ .062 .186⁎ - .009 - .004 .008 - .062 .120⁎ - .049 .021 .034 - .003 .039 .036 .044 .090⁎ - .001 - .007 - .011 .055 .049 1. Moth. civ. 2. Fath. civ. 3. Pol. moth. 4. Pol. fath. 5. Fam. read 6. Fam. control 7. Fam. rel. talk 8. Civ. intol. 9. Rel. talk 10. Torpil 11. Def. torpil 12. Soc. cap. deprivation 13. Group study 14. Mixed study 15. Close friends 16. Mixed 17. ‘Help' 18. Member in org. 19. Trust index 20. W.V.S. trust 21. Father trust 22. General election 23. Local election

Table 3 Correlation analysisa

1

2

4

5

9

11

13

15

16

17

19

20

22

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

–

– - .072

- 1.024

.153

135.673⁎⁎ .282 .379

141.573⁎⁎ .289 .388

.931

⁎p ≤ = .05. ⁎⁎p ≤ = .01. Being female, less than high school education, urban, Internet use ( = yes), three or less hours TV watching, not having mobile phone, mother and father nonmembership in organization, mother and father politics ( = no), youth's non- talk with friends on religion, ever torpil ( = no), social capital deprivation ( = no), methods of studying classes ( = alone), methods of obtaining class materials ( = alone), “helping” friends during exam ( = no), membership in organization ( = no), “it is necessary to be very careful,” “even you should not trust your father” ( = agree), voting in general and local elections ( = no).

412

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

connection), methods of obtaining class materials, “helping” friends during exams, and membership in organizations were statistically significant. Whereas being a member in an organization decreased cheating behavior, having torpil (compared to not having torpil), obtaining class materials either from close friends or a mixture of himself/herself and friends (compared to only himself/herself), “helping” friends during exams (compared to not helping friends during exams) increased it. Except for membership in organizations, these findings cast doubt on the positive side of the social capital argument. It tended to support the thesis that social capital could produce negative outcomes. Among the control variables, while an increase in total family income reduced the prevalence of cheating acts, size of household and four and more hours spent on TV watching increased it. Alcohol use Religion was the only significant independent variable among the family social capital variables, net of the impacts of the control variables (see Table 5). An increase in family's talk with friends/ neighbors on religion decreased the odds of using alcohol by students. Among the youth social capital variables, while social capital deprivation (significant at the .10 level), having torpil, and methods of both studying and obtaining class materials in a collectivist manner (in contrast to an individualistic manner) increased youth's alcohol use, only did the trust index decrease the odds of alcohol use, net of the control variables. Whereas an increase in family total income and being male (in comparison to being female) increased alcohol use, fathers who had high school and higher education (compared to those fathers who had less than high school education) and an increase in household size decreased alcohol use.

Table 5 Logistic regression analysis of social capital and alcohol use (n = 407) Variables Background Age (log) Gender ( = male) Family total income (log) Mother education High school College and university Father education High school College and university Place of residence of parents ( = countryside) Household size (log) Internet use ( = no) Time spent on TV watching ( = four or more hours) Possession of mobile telephone ( = yes) Parental social capital Mother membership in organization ( = yes) Father membership in organization ( = yes) Mother politics ( = yes) Father politics ( = yes) Parents regularly read books/newspapers (index) Parental control over children's friends/ partners (index) Family talks with friends/neighbors on religion (index)

Unlike the above inverse relation of family religion with alcohol use, an increase in family religious talks with their friends and neighbors was related to a parallel increase in political violence carried out by the youth when the control variables were included in the analysis (see Table 6). Whereas the mixed way of studying classes (compared to the solitary way of studying classes) led to a decrease in political violence, having torpil, trusting most people (a measure related to the World Value Survey), and casting a vote in the last local election increased it, net of the influences of the control variables. None of the control variables exerted any significant impact on the dependent variable.

Youth social capital Civic intolerance (index) Talks with friends on religion ( = yes) Ever torpil (“connections”) ( = yes) Definition - torpil index ( = positive) Social capital deprivation ( = yes) Methods of studying classes Group Both individually and in group (mixed) Methods of obtaining reading materials Close friends Both myself and my friends (mixed) “Helping” friends during exams ( = yes) Membership in organization ( = yes) Trust Trust (index) “I can trust most people” (World Value Survey) “Even you should not trust your father” Voting General election ( = yes) Local election (municipal) ( = yes)

Other violence

Constant

Political violence

The father's membership in an organization (compared to those fathers who were not a member of any civic organization), being the only significant family social capital variable, increased other kinds of violence (not counting politics- and flirtation-related violence) (see Table 7). Among the youth social capital variables, two of them were highly statistically significant, whereas obtaining class materials in a mixed way (in comparison to obtaining class materials alone) increased the tendency to use violence, the trust index decreased it, regardless of the effects of the control variables. More important, social capital deprivation was significant at the .10 level and had a positive impact on violence. Gender was the only significant one among the control variables: being male (compared to being female) increased other kinds of violence. Conclusion and discussion The present study aimed to explore the association between a number of social capital measures and cheating, alcohol use, political

Model X2 Cox and Snell Nagelkerke

B

Exp (B)

B

Exp (B)

- 2.139 1.357 .945

.118 3.883⁎⁎ 2.596⁎

.182 1.301 .877

1.200 3.673⁎⁎ 2.404

.467 .231 - .685 - 1.192 - .161 - 1.720 - .162 - .154

1.596 1.260 .504⁎ .304⁎⁎ .851 .179⁎ .851 .857

.599 .251 - .598 - 1.043 - .212 - 2.211 - .159 - .009

1.820 1.285 .550 .352⁎ .809 .110 ⁎⁎ .853 .991

.135

1.145

.239

1.270

.046 - .009 .437 .034 - .152

1.047 .991 1.548 1.034 .859

- .201 - .103 .317 .149 - .137

.818 .902 1.374 1.161 .872

.069

1.071

.082

1.085

- .345

.708⁎

- .286

.751

- .014 - .355 .708 - .026 .418

.986 .702 2.031⁎⁎ .975 1.518

- .027 - .465 .869 - .077 .430

.973 .628 2.385⁎⁎ .926 1.537

1.505 .555

4.505⁎ 1.742⁎

1.187 .576

3.279 1.779⁎

.409 .690 .492 .651

1.505 1.993⁎ 1.636 1.917

.354 .702 .445 .506

1.424 2.018⁎ 1.561 1.658

- .127 .795

.881⁎⁎ 2.215

- .103 .719

.902⁎ 2.052

- .256

.774

- .236

.790

.344

1.410 - .308

.735

2.737 128.530⁎⁎ .271 .368

.003 129.806⁎⁎ .270 .369

⁎p ≤ = .05. ⁎⁎p ≤ = .01. Being female, less than high school education, urban, Internet use ( = yes), three or less hours TV watching, not having mobile phone, mother and father nonmembership in organization, mother and father politics ( = no), youth's non-talk with friends on religion, ever torpil ( = no), social capital deprivation ( = no), methods of studying classes ( = alone), methods of obtaining class materials ( = alone), “helping” friends during exam ( = no), membership in organization ( = no), “it is necessary to be very careful,” “even you should not trust your father” ( = agree), voting in general and local elections ( = no).

violence, and other kinds of violence using a self-reported survey through a sample of students at a newly-established university in a small city in Turkey. The social capital-deviance literature contained several important limitations among others: being mostly at the macro level, having contradictory findings, and overly emphasizing the positive side of social capital (especially in the social capital literature). More important, social capital deprivation, a new concept,

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415 Table 6 Logistic regression analysis of social capital and political violence (n = 409) Variables

B

Background Age (log) - 10.078 Gender ( = male) .201 Family total income (log) 1.465 Mother education High school .371 College and university 1.324 Father education High school - .971 College and university -1.075 Place of residence of parents ( = countryside) .545 Household size (log) - .961 Internet use ( = no) - .241 Time spent on TV watching ( = four or .795 more hours) Possession of mobile telephone ( = yes) - .366 Parental social capital Mother membership in organization ( = yes) Father membership in organization ( = yes) Mother politics ( = yes) Father politics ( = yes) Parents regularly read books/newspapers (index) Parental control over children's friends/ partners (index) Family talks with friends/neighbors on religion (index) Youth social capital Civic intolerance (index) Talks with friends on religion ( = yes) Ever torpil (“connections”) ( = yes) Definition - torpil index ( = positive) Social capital deprivation ( = yes) Methods of studying classes Group Both individually and in group (mixed) Methods of obtaining reading materials Close friends Both myself and my friends (mixed) “Helping” friends during exams ( = yes) Membership in organization ( = yes) Trust Trust (index) “I can trust most people” (World Value Survey) “Even you should not trust your father” Voting General election ( = yes) Local election (municipal) ( = yes) Constant Model X2 Cox and Snell Nagelkerke

Exp (B)

B

Exp (B)

.000 1.223 4.327

- 5.444 - .184 .802

.004 .832 2.230

1.449 3.759

.068 1.462

1.070 4.316

.379 .341 1.725 .382 .786 2.215

- 1.041 - .916 .591 - 1.556 - .161 .736

.353 .400 1.806 .211 .851 2.088

.693

- .155

.856

.925 - .193 .842 1.020 - .120

2.521 .825 2.321 2.774 .887

.677 - .118 .823 1.225 - .159

1.968 .889 2.278 3.403 .853

- .091

.913

- .074

.928

1.289

3.627⁎⁎

1.069

2.913⁎⁎

.112 .089 .830 - .529 .389 - .359 -1.143

1.118 1.094 2.294 .589 1.475 .698 .319⁎

.053 .088 .980 - .676 .585

1.055 1.092 2.666 ⁎ .509 1.794

- .816 - 1.242

.442 .289⁎

- .561 .104 .557 .107

.571 1.110 1.746 1.112

- .268 .517 .412 .358

.765 1.676 1.510 1.430

.079 1.937

1.082 6.938⁎⁎

.044 1.783

1.045 5.950⁎⁎

- .140

.869

- .016

.984

.689

1.992 1.079

2.943⁎

1.298 67.362⁎⁎ .152 .338

- 1.556 64.206⁎⁎ .143 .322

⁎p ≤ = .05. ⁎⁎p ≤ = .01. Being female, less than high school education, urban, Internet use ( = yes), three or less hours TV watching, not having mobile phone, mother and father nonmembership in organization, mother and father politics ( = no), youth's non-talk with friends on religion, ever torpil ( = no), social capital deprivation ( = no), methods of studying classes ( = alone), methods of obtaining class materials ( = alone), “helping” friends during exam ( = no), membership in organization ( = no), “it is necessary to be very careful,” “even you should not trust your father” ( = agree), voting in general and local elections ( = no).

was proposed and tested for the first time. In general, the findings showed that the link between social capital and deviance was contradictory and was not consistent depending on both the types of deviance and the social capital measures. That is, the influence of social capital on deviance was not uniform, a result repeating the existing finding on the issue in question. By using bonding and brid-

413

ging dimensions of social capital as stated by the social capital literature, the contradictory finding from both the present and extant research, however, would be overcome. Two broader social capital measures were used: youth and parent. Among the family social capital measures, parental religious talk with friends/neighbors and father's membership in a civic organization were the only statistically significant variables. Whereas the impact of

Table 7 Logistic regression analysis of social capital and other violence (n = 406) Variables Background Age (log) Gender ( = male) Family total income (log) Mother education High school College and university Father education High school College and university Place of residence of parents ( = countryside) Household size (log) Internet use ( = no) Time spent on TV watching ( = four or more hours) Possession of mobile telephone ( = yes) Parental social capital Mother membership in organization ( = yes) Father membership in organization ( = yes) Mother politics ( = yes) Father politics ( = yes) Parents regularly read books/newspapers (index) Parental control over children's friends/partners (index) Family talks with friends/neighbors on religion (index) Youth social capital Civic intolerance (index) Talks with friends on religion (= yes) Ever torpil (“connections”) ( = yes) Definition - torpil index ( = positive) Social capital deprivation ( = yes) Methods of studying classes Group Both individually and in group (mixed) Methods of obtaning reading materials Close friends Both myself and my friends (mixed) “Helping” friends during exams ( = yes) Membership in organization ( = yes) Trust Trust (index) “I can trust most people” (World Value Survey) “Even you should not trust your father” Voting General election ( = yes) Local election (municipal) ( = yes) Constant Model X2 Cox and Snell Nagelkerke

B

Exp (B)

B

Exp (B)

- 1.329 .666 - .195

.265 1.947⁎ .822

- .285 .765 - .329

.752 2.149⁎⁎ .719

.684 - .025

1.982 .975

.576 - .121

1.779 .886

- .169 .437 - .102 .058 .148 .059

.845 1.549 .903 1.060 1.160 1.061

- .289 .393 - .093 .017 .185 .122

.749 1.481 .911 1.017 1.204 1.129

.409

1.506

.530

1.699

- .794 .725 .107 .547 .063

.452 2.064⁎ 1.113 1.727 1.065

- .778 .732 .229 .475 .005

.459 2.080⁎ 1.257 1.608 1.005

- .035

.966

- .038

.962

- .001

.999

- .028

.973

- .080 - .125 .434 .086 .400

.923 .882 1.544 1.090 1.491

- .082 - .084 .353 .095 .369

.921 .920 1.423 1.100 1.447

.880 .305

2.412 1.357

.945 .182

2.573 1.200

.444 .484 .256 - .470

1.559 1.623 1.292 .625

.454 .543 .308 - .437

1.575 1.722⁎ 1.360 .646

- .096 .285 - .477

.909⁎ 1.330 .621

- .119 .293 - .510

.888⁎⁎ 1.341 .601

.363

1.438 .015

1.473

1.540

53.211⁎ .123 .175

56.508⁎⁎ .128 .182

1.015

⁎p ≤ = .05. ⁎⁎p ≤ = .01. Being female, less than high school education, urban, Internet use ( = yes), three or less hours TV watching, not having mobile phone, mother and father nonmembership in organization, mother and father politics ( = no), youth's non-talk with friends on religion, ever torpil ( = no), social capital deprivation ( = no), methods of studying classes ( = alone), methods of obtaining class materials ( = alone), “helping” friends during exam ( = no), membership in organization ( = no), “it is necessary to be very careful,” “even you should not trust your father” ( = agree), voting in general and local elections ( = no).

414

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415

the parental religion on the youth's alcohol use was negative, it had a positive impact on the political violence perpetuated by the youth. It seemed that the impact of religion on deviance varied with the specific type of deviant acts. While the negative association between religion and alcohol was expected and in line with the criminological literature (Baier & Wright, 2001; Pearce & Haynie, 2004; Regnerus, 2003; Stark, 1996; Wallace et al., 2005), the positive association between the two variables seemed to be related to bonding social capital (importance of within group ties against out-groups). Likewise, father's membership in an organization had a positive influence on violent acts. As for the youth's social capital, a lifetime prevalence of torpil and the ways of studying for classes and of obtaining class materials were the most consistent variables. Having torpil and working together and sharing class materials in comparison to both a solitary way of working and being self-sufficent in terms of class materials generally increased deviant behavior. One of the unique aspects of the current study was the combination of the social capital notion especially with the strain perspective in the sense of using the concept, social capital deprivation. As it was expected, social capital deprivation had positive effects on both alcohol use and violence (not counting politics- and flirtationrelated violence). Social capital literature, futhermore, mostly stressed the importance of membership in an organization, trust, and (with less emphasis) voting behavior. The finding did not generally indicate any significant relationship between civic participation and deviant acts. As for trust, the two trust variables used had an unexpected contradictory sign. Whereas the trust index had negative impacts on deviant acts (alcohol use and nonpolitical violence), the trust measure similiar to the one used mostly in social capital research (“I trusted most people” and “should be very careful”) had a positive impact on political violence. This could be attributable to measurement error. Finally, with respect to the act of voting, those students who cast votes in the last local (municipal) election were more likely to engage in political violence than those students who did not cast votes (bonding social capital). When the youth were asked which political party they voted for in the last local election at the time of the survey, the youth reported that 19 percent of the university students voted for an ultra nationalist, followed by a religious (14 percent), and a social democratic party (n = 485 due to missing items). The findings of the study had some implications for the literature concerning the link between social capital and deviance. First, social capital should not be considered in its totality but should be explored in terms of its various dimensions; for example, bonding and bridging social capitals. Relatedly, the contradictory findings on the link between social capital and deviant behavior in the literature could be explained on the basis of which specific indicators of social capital belong to bonding or bridging social capitals. Second, the notion of relative social capital deprivation should be incorporated into the literature of social capital and deviance. Third, as it was claimed in the social capital literature, some consequences of social capital were not necessarily positive. The present study showed that bonding social capital (‘torpil,’ parental religiosity, working together, sharing class materials, social capital deprivation, voting participation in local elections) led to an increase in deviant behavior. At this point, the present study had a very important practical implication for Turkish society in general. The bridging type of social capital should be supported by both governmental policies and nongovernmental actions (nongovernmental civic organizations) because the bonding type of social capital had a detrimental effect on human relations (e.g., deviance, social exclusion, unfair status attainment, low quality of life, etc.). For example, torpil, an ‘unfair’ way of access to goods or services, should be eliminated as a common way to solve ‘individual’ problems. The present study had some limitations: first, it was a crosssectional study of the relationship between social capital and deviance. The study did not control for prior delinquency which

might have had a substantial impact on the findings here. Second, the small sample size did not allow for taking into account interaction effects between social capital and some other variables. An interaction effect analysis of some demographic variables (for example, age, gender) with social capital measures could have been illuminating on the complex nature of the issue in question. Third, the test of social capital on a sample of university students might not be an ideal way to deal with the topic in question due to the relatively less permanent nature of relations within this population. Fourth, the findings here came from a newly-established university which might not reflect other universities or Turkish society in general. Last but not least, the measurement of the key concepts (social capital and crime) in categorical form (yes, no) as well as the use of a single indicator for some concepts, like relative social capital deprivation, was a very important deficiency. Relative social capital should be measured with an index involving influential ties with such individuals' family member(s), relative(s), friends(s) of one's own family or his/her own family, neighbors, politicians, etc. on the basis of ethnic, religious, ideological, political, and economic topics. Acknowledgements I am indebted to my friend, Dorothy Lee (Denver, Colorado), for both her invaluable editing of this article and provision of very important articles/books; and also to the two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their extremely valuable critiques, comments, and help. Notes 1. Putnam et al.'s (1993) social capital definition was used in the present study. Some other definitions by important scholars were as follows: according to Bourdieu (1986), social capital referred to “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which were linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (p. 248). Coleman's (1994) definition was followed: “It was not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consisted of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitated certain actions of individuals who were within the structure” (p. 302). Fukuyama's (2001) definition was “an instantiated informal norm that promoted co-operation between two or more individuals” (p. 7). 2. Such sociological concepts as social cohesion, social solidarity, and collective efficacy were closely tied with social capital. It was beyond to the aim of this article to explain similarities and differences among these concepts. 3. See Lin (2000) for social capital inequality at the group level (gender, race, and ethnicity). According to Lin, inequality in social capital existed for two reasons: structural (because of the historical and organizational constructions, societies gave non-equal opportunities to their individuals with different gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.) and homophily (individuals tended to communicate and share their feelings and ideas with others who were similiar to themselves). 4. The number of civic engagements in organizations was much lower than the number of civic engagements in organizations in the Western world (Kubicek, 2002). There were 61,000 civic organizations in the present day Turkey (according to Keyman & İçduygu, 2003, however, it was about 3,000). A quarter of these organizations existed in İstanbul, Ankara, and İzmir, the three biggest cities in the country. The ratio of involvement in civic organizations were 1/830 in these cities, and it was 1/1,054 in the other parts of Turkey (Şimşek, 2004). 5. Some studies examined the link between social capital and some other kinds of deviance-related topics: Owen (2005) found that a higher level of social capital (Putnam's social capital index) was associated negatively with a lower level of corporal punishment at the state level in the United States in a cross-sectional study. Halpern (2001), however, examined the relationship between social capital (trust) and the victimization rate among fifteen countries in a cross-sectional study. The scholar found that a greater degree of trust was related to a higher victimization rate, a finding that did not fit into the ‘expected relation’ with a negative sign. Steffensmeier and Ulmer (2006) explored the relationship between social capital and numbers gambling activity which included the period 1970-2000 in the United States on the basis of information from archives and interviews with key informants (as well as other sources). It was argued that numbers gambling was not just a monetary act or an outcome of economic disadvantage but also a product of social capital which was very important for success, durability, and longevity in numbers gambling.

References Adaman, F., & Çarkoğlu, A. (2003). Social capital and corruption during times of crisis: A look at Turkish firms during the economic crisis of 2001. In Z. Öniş & B. Rubin (Eds.), The Turkish economy in crisis (pp. 120−145). London: Frank Cass. Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Ö. Özbay / Journal of Criminal Justice 36 (2008) 403–415 Allık, J., & Realo, A. (2004). Individualism-collectivism and social capital. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 29−49. Baier, C. J., & Wright, B. R. E. (2001). If you love me, keep my commandments: A meta analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 3−21. Başlevent, C., Kirmanoğlu, H., & Şenatalar, B. (2005). Empirical investigation of party preferences and economic voting in Turkey. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 547−562. Beyerlein, K., & Hipp, J. R. (2005). Social capital, too much of a good thing? American religious traditions and community crime. Social Forces, 2, 995−1013. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241−258). New York: Greenwood. Browning, C. R., Feinberg, S. L., & Dietz, R. D. (2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83, 505−534. Buğra, A. (2003). The place of the economy in Turkish society. South Atlantic Quarterly, 102, 453−470. Burton, V. S., Jr., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, R. G. (1994). Reconsidering strain theory: Operationalization, rival theories, and adult criminality. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 213−239. Burton, V. S., Jr., & Dunaway, R. G. (1994). Strain, relative deprivation, and middle-class delinquency. In G. Barak (Ed.), Varieties of criminology (pp. 79−95). Westport, CT: Praeger. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95−S120. Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307−336. Erder, S. (2002). Urban migration and reconstruction of kinship networks: The case of İstanbul. In R. Liljeström & E. Özdalga (Eds.), Autonomy and dependence in the family: Turkey and Sweden in critical perspective (pp. 117−135). İstanbul, Turkey: Swedish Research Institute. Fukuyama, F. (1996). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly, 22, 7−20. Galea, S., Karpatti, A., & Kennedy, B. (2002). Social capital and violence in the United States, 1974-1993. Social Science and Medicine, 55, 1373−1383. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Larocque, D. (2003). Civic community and juvenile delinquency: A study of the regions of Italy. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 22−40. Güneş-Ayata, A. (1994). Roots and trends of clientelism in Turkey. In L. Roniger & A. Güneş-Ayata (Eds.), Democracy, clientelism, and civil society (pp. 49−63). Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner. Halpern, D. (2001). Moral values, social trust and inequality: Can values explain crime? British Journal of Criminology, 41, 236−251. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (1994). Elections and party references in Turkey: Changes and continuities in the 1990s. Comparative Political Studies, 27, 402−424. Karaman, M. L., & Aras, B. (2000). The crisis of civil society in Turkey. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 2, 39−58. Katz, R. S. (2002). Re-examining the integrative social capital theory of crime. Western Criminology Review, 4, 30−54. Kennedy, B. P., Kawachi, I., Prothrow-Stith, D., Lochner, K., & Gupta, V. (1998). Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime. Social Science and Medicine, 47, 7−17. Keyman, E. F., & İçduyğu, A. (2003). Globalization, civil society, and citizenship in Turkey: Actors, boundaries and discourses. Citizenship Studies, 7, 219−234. Krohn, M. (2001). Sources of criminality: Control and deterrence theories. In J. F. Sheley (Ed.), Criminology (pp. 373−399). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kubicek, P. (2002). The earthquake, civil society, and political change in Turkey: Assessment and comparison with Eastern Europe. Political Studies, 50, 761−778. Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 374−402. Lederman, D., Loayza, N., & Menendez, A. M. (2002). Violent crime: Does social capital matter? Development and Cultural Change, 50, 509−539. Lee, M. R., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2004a). Civic participation, regional subcultures, and violence: The differential effects of secular and religious participation on adult and juvenile homicide. Homicide Studies, 8, 5−39.

415

Lee, M. R., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2004b). Love thy neighbor? Moral communities, civic engagement, and juvenile homicide in rural areas. Social Forces, 82, 1001−1035. Lee, M. R., & Ousey, G. C. (2005). Institutional access, residential segregation, and urban Black homicide. Sociological Inquiry, 75, 31−54. Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 785−795. Martin, D. (2002). Spatial patterns in residential burglary: Assessing the effect of neighborhood social capital. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18, 132−146. McCarthy, B., Hagan, J., & Martin, M. J. (2002). In and out of harm's way: Violent victimization and the social capital of fictive street families. Criminology, 40, 831−865. McNeal, R. B., Jr. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78, 117−144. McNulty, T. L., & Bellair, P. E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in adolescent violences: Structural disadvantage, family well-being, and social capital. Justice Quarterly, 20, 1−31. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press. Messner, S. F., Baumer, E. P., & Rosenfeld, R. (2004). Dimensions of social capital and rates of criminal homicide. American Sociological Review, 69, 882−903. Owen, S. S. (2005). The relationship between social capital and corporal punishment in schools: A theoretical inquiry. Youth and Society, 37, 85−112. Özcan, Y. Z. (2000). Determinants of political behavior in İstanbul, Turkey. Party Politics, 6, 505−518. Pearce, L. D., & Haynie, D. L. (2004). Intergenerational religious dynamics and adolescent delinquency. Social Forces, 82, 1553−1572. Portes, A. (1996). The downside of social capital. American Prospect, 26, 18−21. Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1320−1350. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 41−51. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Regnerus, M. D. (2003). Moral communities and adolescent delinquency: Religious contexts and community social control. Sociological Quarterly, 44, 523−554. Rose, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441−479. Rosenfeld, R., Messner, S. F., & Baumer, E. P. (2001). Social capital and homicide. Social Forces, 80, 283−309. Rubio, M. (1997). Perverse social capital: Some evidence from Colombia. Journal of Economic Issues, 31, 805−816. Salmi, V., & Kivivuori, J. (2006). The association between social capital and juvenile crime: The role of individual and structural factors. European Journal of Criminology, 3, 123−148. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1995). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918−924. Siegel, L. J. (1995). Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies. Minneapolis, MN: West. Şimşek, S. (2004). The transformation of civil society in Turkey: From quantity to quality. Turkish Studies, 5, 46−74. Stark, R. (1996). Religion as context: Hellfire and delinquency one more time. Sociology of Religion, 57, 163−173. Steffensmeier, D., & Ulmer, J. T. (2006). Black and White control of numbers gambling: A cultural assets-social capital view. American Sociological Review, 71, 123−156. Villarreal, A., & Silva, B. F. A. (2006). Social cohesion, criminal victimization and perceived risk of crime in Brazilian neighborhoods. Social Forces, 84, 1725−1753. Wallace, L. H., Moak, S. C., & Moore, N. T. (2005). Religion as an insulator of delinquency in schools. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 217−233. Wright, D. R., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (2006). Social capital and adolescent violent behavior: Correlates of fighting and weapon use among secondary school students. Social Forces, 84, 1435−1453. Wright, J. P., Cullen, F. T., & Miller, J. T. (2001). Family social capital and delinquent involvement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 1−9. Wuthnow, R. (2002). Religious involvement and status-bridging social capital. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 669−684.