- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Perceptions of Blameworthiness and Punitiveness Towards Government Officials and Business Executives in State-Corporate Crime Cases
Abstract
The concept of state-corporate crime is conspicuously missing from recent state-funded surveys of public attitudes towards white-collar and corporate crime. While these studies have reported increased condemnation of upper-class offenders, the scenarios used to elicit subjects' reactions did not specifically describe collusion between political and economic institutions. As a result, little is known about how the polity's role in encouraging or assisting corporate malfeasance may influence popular sentiments such as blame attribution and perceptions of just deserts. The present study asked 231 Facebook users to read two scenarios inspired by actual state-corporate crime cases, one in which the government initiated the offence, and another in which it merely facilitated the company's actions. After reading both scenarios, the respondents were asked to rate the blameworthiness of companies and government agencies and choose adequate punishments for key decision-makers. Results of statistical analyses suggest that the subjects were sensitive to variation in the role played by the state. The government was considered more blameworthy and deserving of tougher punishments when it initiated corporate wrongdoing, although a majority of participants felt that political and economic forces in both cases were equally to blame. These findings suggest that public opinion research should be used to engage the citizenry in evidence-informed policymaking by identifying commonly agreed upon solutions to state-corporate crime.
Content
Author and article information
Notes
The concept of white-collar crime is notorious for its lack of a commonly accepted definition. While the populist view limits its scope to perpetrators of high social status and respectability (Sutherland 1949), the patrician perspective focuses on the offence itself, regardless of the offender's social class (Edelhertz 1970). On the other hand, corporate crime clearly refers to offences committed by corporate officers for their corporation and the offences of the corporation itself (Clinard and Quinney 1973). While both concepts may not be used interchangeably, many opinion surveys nevertheless include them as synonyms of “upper-class” or “elite” criminality as opposed to traditional street crime.
Methods employed in the current study were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the author's university.
Some readers may be unfamiliar with these US agencies. OSHA stands for Occupational Safety and Health Administration. USDA stands for United States Department of Agriculture. These regulatory bodies are charged with monitoring, reporting and sanctioning contraventions to workplace safety standards.