Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hope, TJ
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects: other, HV
Our effort to understand crime rate change is hampered by governmental thinking about crime, and the vested interest governments have in favourable (popular) outcomes. At least as practised in the United Kingdom, thinking about burglary often assumes a ‘top-down’ approach, placing most of the drivers of crime rate change in the hands of government; while reducing private citizens to passive, isolated\ud individuals, and civil society and its institutions to a wasteland devoid of intention, morality and purpose (Hope and Karstedt, 2003). Not surprisingly, the increasing use\ud of crime statistics as a source for governmental performance measurement (Matrix and Hope, 2006) tends to reinforce government’s own self-image that it has (or ought\ud to have) the dominant influence over society’s crime (Garland, 2001) 2. Because of this, governments find it difficult to come up with narratives to explain the changes in crime rates observed in their own national statistics: reluctant to take responsibility when crime goes up, at a loss to explain why it goes down. Part of their difficulty rests in failing to acknowledge sufficiently the active role played by private citizens and civil institutions within society (Hope and Karstedt, 2003). This paper, which tries to account for the trend in burglary in England and Wales since the start of the 1980s, attempts to correct the balance somewhat, weighing the governmental perspective\ud against a more ‘market-oriented’ or ‘civil society’ perspective.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Farrell, G. (2005). 'Progress and prospects in the prevention of repeat victimisation'. In N. Tilley (Ed.). Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.
    • Farrell, G. (1995). 'Preventing repeat victimisation'. In M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington (Eds.) Building a Safer Society. Crime and Justice, a Review of Research, volume 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Hope, T. (2002). 'The road taken: evaluation, replication and crime reduction'. In G. Hughes, E. McLaughlin and J. Muncie (Eds.) Crime Prevention and Community Safety. London: Sage Publications.
    • Hope, T. (2001a). 'Crime victimisation and inequality in risk society'. In R. Matthews and J. Pitts (Eds.) Crime Prevention, Disorder and Community Safety. London: Routledge
    • Hope, T. (2001b). 'Community crime prevention in Britain: a strategic overview'. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1, 421-440.
    • Hope, T. (2000). 'Inequality and the clubbing of private security'. In T. Hope and R. Sparks (Eds.) Crime, Risk and Insecurity. London: Routledge. Walker, A., C. Kershaw, and S. Nicholas (2006) (Eds.) Crime in England and Wales 2005/06. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/06, July 2006. London: Home Office.
    • Young, J. (1999). The Exclusive Society. London: Sage Publications.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article