TOWARD AN ANALYTICAL CRIMINOLOGY: THE MICRO–MACRO PROBLEM, CAUSAL MECHANISMS, AND PUBLIC POLICY

• Date: 01 August 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12149
• Published date: 01 August 2017
• Author: ROSS L. MATSUEDA

THE 2016 SUTHERLAND ADDRESS

TOWARD AN ANALYTICAL CRIMINOLOGY:

THE MICRO–MACRO PROBLEM, CAUSAL

MECHANISMS, AND PUBLIC POLICY∗

ROSS L. MATSUEDA

University of Washington

KEYWORDS: analytical criminology, micro–macro problem, social interaction

In this address, I revisit the micro–macro problem in criminology, arguing

for an “analytical criminology” that takes an integrated approach to the micro–

macro problem. I begin by contrasting an integrated methodological-individualist

approach with traditional holist and individualist approaches. An integrated ap-

proach considers the concept of emergence and tackles the difficult problem of

specifying causal mechanisms by which interactions among individuals produce

social organizational outcomes. After presenting a few examples of micro–macro

transitions relevant to criminology, I discuss research programs in sociology and

economics that focus on these issues. I then discuss the implications of social inter-

action effects for making causal inferences about crime and for making crime policy

recommendations.

The micro–macro problem—sometimes called the “levels of explanation problem”—

has a long history in criminology. With reference to the problem, quoting Longfellow,

Short (1998: 3), observed that scholarship sometimes takes on the appearance of “ships

that pass in the night.” The problem is that scholars often address questions at the

macro-level, seeking to explain crime rates of a macro-entity, such as groups or spa-

tial aggregates, and ignore the micro-level. Conversely, scholars working at the micro-

level seek to explain the genesis of individual criminal acts but often at the expense

of considering the role of social organization and social context. By contrast, if we ad-

dress the relationship between micro- and macro-processes, we encounter several im-

portant and challenging puzzles and questions: How are the purposive acts of individ-

uals constrained by extant social structure and organization? How do individual social

interactions produce and reproduce social structures and organizations—that is, what

are the specific generating mechanisms? What implications—if any—do answers to these

∗The research underlying this article was supported by a fellowship from the Center for Advanced

Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, CA, and by a grant from the National Science Foun-

dation (SES-0966662). The points of view and opinions expressed herein are those of the author

and do not represent the official position of the funding agencies. I thank Aim´

ee Dechter, Michael

Sobel, and Teppei Yamamoto for comments, suggestions, and discussions.

Direct correspondence to Ross L. Matsueda, Department of Sociology, Box 353340, University of

Washington, Seattle, WA 98121 (e-mail: matsueda@uw.edu).

C2017 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12149

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 55 Number 3 493–519 2017 493

494 MATSUEDA

questions have for our ability to make valid causal inferences and to generate policy

recommendations?

In this address, I wish to revisit the micro–macro problem and to discuss the prospects

for what can be termed, “analytical criminology,” which is focused on the relationship

between micro- and macro-levels of explanation. I begin by describing three traditional

approaches in the social sciences: methodological holism, methodological individualism,

and an integration of micro–macro levels. I then describe Coleman’s (1990) analytical

approach to the latter position, as well as his attempt to address the difficult question

of specifying how individual interactions produce socially organized (macro) outcomes.

To illustrate the micro–macro transition, I describe a few examples from criminology,

sociology, and economics on specific mechanisms by which individuals produce macro-

outcomes. Thereafter, I describe research programs in sociology and economics that pro-

vide theoretical and methodological advances that can inform analytical criminology.

Sociological models identify the specific causal mechanisms by which individuals gener-

ate macro-outcomes. Economic models of endogenous social interactions provide utility

models of individual decisions and econometric models of social interactions. Finally, I

discuss the implications of complex micro–macro relations (social interaction effect) for

research and policy. First, social interactions complicate causal inference by producing

what statisticians call “interference,” in which treatment assignment of one individual af-

fects the outcome of another. Second, social interactions can produce what economists

call “social multiplier effects,” which can alter the effects of policy interventions.

THE MICRO–MACRO PROBLEM

METHODOLOGICAL HOLISM

Methodological holists assume that causality operates at the macro-level of groups and

societies. This position is often attributed to pure structuralists, such as Durkheim (1964

[1893]), Blau (1977), and Black (1993). Some extreme holists argue that causality lies ex-

clusively at the macro-level as structures produce aggregate outcomes, and therefore, they

believe that individuals can be safely ignored (e.g., Blau, 1977; Black, 1993). Others argue

that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts because of emergence, the notion that

“collective phenomena are collaboratively created by individuals yet are not reducible

to individual action” (Sawyer, 2001: 552). According to this argument, the study of indi-

viduals misses the emergent properties of the group, and therefore, the group as a whole

should be studied to reveal macro-level causality. This is exemplified by Durkheim’s (1982

[1895]: 59) treatment of a “social fact” as “having an existence of its own, independent of

its individual manifestations,” and “capable of exerting over the individual an external

constraint.”

In criminology, researchers in the holist tradition have tested Blau’s theory of hetero-

geneity and violence (e.g., Blau and Blau, 1982), Durkheim’s theory of anomie and crime

(Messner and Rosenfeld, 2007), and Shaw and McKay’s (1969 [1942]) theory of social

disorganization and delinquency (Bursik and Webb, 1982; Sampson and Groves, 1989).

Assuming that causality lies in macro-level processes, these researchers examined the ef-

fects of structural variables on rates of crime using metropolitan areas, cities, and neigh-

borhoods as the unit of analysis. Data on individuals, if used at all by researchers, are

typically aggregated to the corresponding macro-level.