Illegitimate Opportunity Structures Essay ⋆ Essays on Controversial Topics ⋆ EssayEmpire

During the 1950s two predominant theories of criminal behavior were Edwin H. Sutherland’s differential association theory and Robert K. Merton’s anomie theory. Sutherland argued that criminal behavior is learned in the same manner as other behaviors; people who are socialized to sanction criminal behavior are likely to become criminals. Merton suggested that criminal behavior results when there is a discrepancy between the goals reinforced by society (e.g., earn a good income) and the institutionalized means for attaining these goals (e.g., complete a good education). Those whose access to legitimate opportunities is blocked in some way, perhaps due to poverty or the unavailability of good schools, may use illegal means to reach culturally valued goals. Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin agreed that both theories had merit but added that a key channel of access to culturally valued goals was through illegitimate opportunity structures, especially in impoverished inner-city communities where legitimate means may be scarce.

This notion of illegitimate opportunity structures elaborates the notion that differential access to legitimate opportunities explains why some people are more successful than others. Rather than focusing on how access to wealth or social capital leads to financial success, Cloward and Ohlin argued that some people engage in crime and deviance because they have relatively greater access to illegitimate opportunities. These opportunities imply (a) a learning environment in which particular skills and values are acquired, and (b) opportunities to engage in criminal roles. For example, youth may find legitimate opportunities blocked, but those who have learned methods of delinquency and who have opportunities to engage in such practices—perhaps because their peers are delinquent—become delinquents. In the absence of illegitimate opportunity structures, people with blocked opportunities may experience problems of adjustment (e.g., anxiety or depression), withdraw from society, or turn to risky sexual behavior or drug use in an attempt to find other avenues of self-acceptance or peer-evaluated success. Some researchers argued that illegitimate opportunity structures became more prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s as many inner-city areas experienced a concentration of poverty due to the loss of skilled jobs in urban centers. Others pointed out that crime may also result in the attenuation of legitimate opportunities, such as when conventional residents flee high-crime neighborhoods. Hence, residents may be left with few options other than illegitimate opportunities.

In their seminal works, Cloward and Ohlin focused primarily on inner-city gangs and how their members accessed illegitimate opportunity structures as they engaged in particular forms of delinquency. Their studies have been criticized because they describe deviant subcultures with norms that are opposed to the widely accepted norms of the broader culture and focus on gangs as the main facilitator of delinquent behavior. Yet, even members of these presumed subcultures tend to sanction the legitimate norms of society, and most delinquency is not the result of gang behavior. Critics claim that delinquents who maintain that legitimate opportunities are blocked, whereas illegitimate opportunities are not, are engaging in rationalization for their failure to sufficiently inculcate the norms and practices of conventional society.

The notion of illegitimate opportunity structures may be used to account for various types of illegal or deviant activities. For example, transnational criminal organizations may search for porous borders, lax enforcement efforts, or bribery opportunities as they engage in drug trafficking, human trafficking, or money laundering. Hence, they tend to ply their trade in nations that afford ready access to illegitimate opportunities and avoid nations that block such access. Assuming that a cultural drive to financial or political success is part of certain societies, blocked legitimate opportunities may motivate even presumably successful people to draw upon illegitimate opportunity structures. This frequently occurs because people often compare themselves with proximate others, such as those who work in similar occupations, when they judge their relative success. For example, the vice president of a corporation may resort to bribing public officials if his earlier attempts to obtain government contracts were unsuccessful. A lobbyist may provide illegal gratuities to politicians to influence votes, especially if previous efforts at using legitimate means were thwarted. Academic researchers may manipulate data if their earlier research efforts failed. Students who perform poorly on standardized exams may see cheating as a viable alternative if they are eager to be admitted to a particular academic institution. These are examples of using illegitimate opportunity structures when legitimate opportunities are perceived as unavailable.

Although blocked legitimate opportunities and access to illegitimate opportunities may explain some forms of deviant behavior, it remains unclear whether the latter is a necessary or sufficient condition. For instance, access to illegitimate opportunities is often gauged by noting deviant or criminal behavior; this is clearly tautological. However, recent research suggests that providing greater access to legitimate opportunities, such as through vocational training or providing high-quality jobs, results in less criminal behavior. Moreover, moving from an impoverished neighborhood with high rates of joblessness to a better-quality neighborhood has been shown to reduce the probability of delinquency among some youth.

Bibliography:

Braithwaite, John. 1989. “Criminological Theory and Organizational Crime.” Justice Quarterly 6:333-58.
Cloward, Richard A. 1959. “Illegitimate Means, Anomie, and Deviant Behavior.” American Sociological Review 24:164-76.
Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press.
McAdam, Doug. 1996. “Conceptual Origins, Current Problems, Future Directions.” Pp. 23-40 in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Merton, Robert K. 1995. “Opportunity Structure: The Emergence, Diffusion, and Differentiation of a Sociological Concept, 1930s-1950s.” Pp. 3-78 in The Legacy of Anomie Theory, edited by F. Adler and W. S. Laufer. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Simpson, Sally S. and Nicole Leeper Piquero. 2002. “Low Self-Control, Organizational Theory, and Corporate Crime.” Law & Society Review 36:509-18.

This example Illegitimate Opportunity Structures Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.