Social Conditions and Cross-National Imprisonment Rates: Using Set-Theoretic Methods for Theory Testing and Identifying Deviant Cases

• Date: 01 May 2017
• Published date: 01 May 2017
• Author: Emily I. Troshynski,Timothy C. Hart,Terance D. Miethe
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986216688815
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986216688815

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2017, Vol. 33(2) 152 –172

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1043986216688815

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Social Conditions and

Cross-National Imprisonment

Rates: Using Set-Theoretic

Methods for Theory Testing

and Identifying Deviant Cases

Terance D. Miethe1, Emily I. Troshynski1,

and Timothy C. Hart2

Abstract

Macro-level theories of punishment suggest that particular social conditions explain

national imprisonment rates over place and time. Important causal factors underlying

these theories include a country’s level of development, criminality, socioeconomic

inequality, and political volatility. Based on a sample of 166 nations and set-theoretical

methods, the present study uses the formal logic standards of necessity and sufficiency

to evaluate the empirical merits of these widely assumed causal relations. After

summarizing the confirmatory evidence and patterns of exceptional cases, results

are discussed in terms of their implications for refining current macro-level theories

of punishment and future testing of them through the conjunctive analysis of set-

theoretic relations.

Keywords

cross-national imprisonment, set-theoretic methods, necessary and sufficient

conditions

Cross-national studies of punishment differ widely in their theoretical approach, ana-

lytic methods, and sampling units. They span functional and conflict theories, multiple

methods, research designs, and diverse samples. Despite these differences, however,

1University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

2Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Terance D. Miethe, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland

Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5009, USA.

Email: miethe@unlv.nevada.edu

688815CCJXXX10.1177/1043986216688815Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeMiethe et al.

research-article2017

Miethe et al. 153

previous macro-level studies share a common interest in the explication of the particu-

lar social conditions that enable and constrain the use of state-sponsored punishment.

Based on existing functionalist and conflict theories, the most commonly identified

risk factors for high imprisonment rates in modern societies include a country’s level

of development, criminality, socioeconomic inequality, and political volatility.

Although different theoretical perspectives provide alternative interpretations of the

causal mechanisms by which these antecedent social conditions influence punishment,

these causal conditions assumed to underlie national imprisonment rates reflect a more

general concept of “social threat” (Liska, 1992).

Using set-theoretic methods and a large sample of nations (n = 166), the present

study investigates the causal significance (i.e., the necessity and/or sufficiency) of

particular set relations involving social conditions and national incarceration rates.

Both crisp- and fuzzy-set analyses are used to identify the separate and conjunctive

influences of nations’ levels of socioeconomic development, criminality, inequality,

and political volatility among high- and low-imprisonment-rate nations. After sum-

marizing the confirmatory evidence and patterns among deviant cases, these findings

are discussed in terms of their implications for future research on testing macro-level

theories of punishment and conjunctive analyses.

Social Threat and State-Sponsored Punishment

Socio-legal scholars have developed an impressive array of macro-level theories of

societal conditions to explain the prevalence and nature of criminal punishment.

Within the general framework of functionalist and conflict theories, this scholarship

explores the relationship between criminal sanctions and social solidarity (Durkheim,

1893/1997), economic conditions (Rusch & Kirchheimer, 1939), cultural changes in

the methods of control (Elias, 1939/1982; Foucault, 1977; Garland, 1992), population

heterogeneity (Ruddell & Urbina, 2007), the global diffusion of neoliberal ideology

(Wacquant, 2009), and partisan politics at the state and local levels (Jacobs & Helms,

1996; Sutton, 2004; Tonry, 2004).

Although interpreted from diverse perspectives, a central premise of most macro-

level theories is that the prevalence of state-sponsored punishment is a reflection or

consequence of the level of threat or disruption in that society. The nature of this threat

can take various forms. For example, these threats may be real (e.g., due to an “objec-

tive” rise in crime rates), real in their consequences (e.g., when citizens worry or are

fearful of crime [Ditton & Farrell, 2000; Lee, 2007]) or socially constructed (e.g., as

reflective of moral panics [Cohen, 2002; Ruddell & Urbina, 2007]). They may also

derive from multiple sources, including social differentiation, economic conditions,

and/or political forces. Depending upon the source and nature of these threats,

increased incarceration may serve as one of many potential mechanisms of state-spon-

sored social control for dealing with these disruptive influences and/or maintaining the

status quo.

From this general social-threat perspective and specific applications of it, particular

social conditions have theoretical importance in explaining imprisonment rates over