MAIN INDEX

COMMITTEE INDEX

Mission Statement
National Poll - 2002
2004 Annual Report
2005 Annual Report
Crime Symposium
More money, More crime
Members Opinion Survey

CONTACT US

Make a Donation

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
- Dr. Peter St. Jean: Interim Chair
- Jo-Anne George:
Grantmaker, Local Chair
- Dr. Sam Christian:
Assistant Grantmaker
- Earl Vector:

More Money, More Crime? Trends in Dominica over the last 21 Years

By Peter K. B. St. Jean, Ph.D.

A popular opinion among Dominica nationals, including policy makers, is that increased crime on the Island is primarily due to lack of economic developments. Therefore, increased economic developments are expected to significantly reduce incidents of crime in Dominica. For the first time, this opinion is tested by empirical research and has been determined to be false. Economic Developments are not likely to reduce crimes in Dominica without serious commitments to social and criminal justice reforms

Over the past 21 years (1984[1]-2004) in Dominica, increases in economic developments have corresponded with significant increases in crime rates. In other words, more money per capita has corresponded with more crimes per capita.

Based on these findings, policy makers should not rely primarily on economic developments to reduce crime problems in Dominica. Instead, considering the trends from the previous 21 years in Dominica, economic developments should be expected to increase crime rates. Therefore, concurrent with efforts aimed at increasing economic developments – which should include gainful employment, serious commitments must be made to independently address factors that will have direct impacts on reducing crime in the nation. These factors include promoting moral development[2], reducing drug and alcohol addictions; reducing relative deprivation; reducing inequalities; increasing solidarities with the state, and considerably improving police, prison, courts and other criminal justice services so that punishments can be swift, certain, and rehabilitative, but severe enough to fit the crimes committed.

The Data

In Dominica, over the last 21 years (1984-2004) the total GDP per capita has increased by 55.4% (from 38.67 million per 10,000 residents in 1984 to 60.08 in 2004). Correspondingly, over the same period, total indictable crimes per capita have increased by 100.1% (95.6 per 10,000 residents in 1984 to 191.3 in 2004), and burglaries have increased by 73.2% (82 per capita in 1984, to 142 in 2004).  Burglaries warrant particular attention because, over the last 21 years, they have accounted for an average of 78% of all reported indictable crimes in Dominica (ranging from 93.2% of all such crimes in 1984 to 74.3% in 2004).  See Figure 1.

                                                                       
                          Figure 1

More rigorous statistical analyses further confirm the observation that over the last 21 years, increased economic productivity has been associated with significant increases in criminal victimization among Dominicans. More specifically, careful OLS regression analyses of Dominica’s crime and GDP growth rates for those years reveal that increased economic productivity in any given year has been significantly matched with increased crime rates, two years later. For instance, a 1% increase in total GDP growth rates per capita in a given year has been

significantly associated with a 2.2% increase in total indictable crimes, and 2.6% increase in burglaries, 2 years later. This means that the significant relationships between crime and GDP indicators exist on a 2-year lag. Economic factors require sufficient time to take effect.

Among the 13 major GDP sectors, the construction, and banking and insurance sectors are most responsive to significant changes in crime rates. Those sectors also have a positive relationship with crimes. For instance, every 1% increase in the construction sector has been significantly matched with a .6% increase in total crimes, and a .6% increase in burglaries, 2 years later. A 1% increase in the banking and insurance sector has been significantly matched with a 1.5% increase in total crime growth rates, and a 1.3% increase in burglaries, 2 years later.

Additional Notations

Over the last 21 years, the Dominica society has also experienced small and statistically insignificant declines in total crime rates during the same year that GDP growth rates increased, and the year thereafter. However, the only statistically significant relationships are the increases in crimes that occur 2 years after increases in GDP growth rates.   

It is also important to note that, over the last two consecutive years (2003 and 2004), total indictable crimes reported to the Dominica police have declined by 19% and 15% respectively. The year 2002 recorded the most indictable crimes (1987) ever reported to the police in Dominica’s known history. With a total of 1363 reported indictable crimes in 2004, there was a 31% decrease in such crimes compared to 2002. However, we are still left to pay attention to the more prevalent trend of more money, more crime that has been occurring in Dominica over the last 21 years.

Why, More money, More Crime in Dominica?: Findings from 10 years of Ethnography and 2003 Prison Interviews and Survey

To further understand these trends found in the statistical data, I have analyzed data from my 10 years of ethnographic sociological research in Dominica, in-depth and in-person interviews conducted in July 2003 with 40 of Dominica’s most hardened offenders and recidivists, and a 2003 survey of a random sample of 103 prisoners in HMS Prison.[3]  The main purpose of the survey was to better understand the most important individual, family, community, psychological, social, and economic factors associated with criminality in Dominica.  The interviews produced several rich testimonies from offenders as they explained the various factors which they believed account for their habitual criminal involvements.  It is not possible to publish all of these findings in this research and policy brief so I will only focus on those that are most relevant to the issue at hand.

Selected Findings from 2003 Prison Survey

One purpose of the survey was to understand the relationship between economic factors and criminality among the prison population. Some of the most relevant findings are as follows:

1. When asked why they committed the crime(s) for which they were currently serving time in prison, 36.9% of inmates cited deprivation; 15.5% said drug and alcohol addictions; 14.6% indicated weak self control, unresolved conflicts, stress, and free will; 13.6% were not sure; 8.7% cited unemployment; 7.8% said they were wrongfully accused; and 2.9% said self-defense.

In other words, 77.7% of the reasons cited (all excluding unemployment, and not sure) were either psychological, or social. Only 8.7% identified the main motivation for their criminal involvement to be directly related to the economy (unemployment). It is important to note that inmates explained deprivation as something which is more psychological and social than economic. For instance, they explained deprivation as not having enough of what they think they deserve, feeling frustrated because of the perceived differences in the material things that others possess as opposed to themselves, and feeling a general sense of failure in life.

2. When asked what work they conducted when out of prison, 41% of inmates said agriculture, 25% cited odd jobs/laborer, and 12% cited construction. Other professions were represented by 1% to 2.9% of the prison population.
3. Inmates provided reasons which suggested that there was a positive relationship between money and crime. That is to say, when money seems to be increasing circulation in the Dominica society, and there is more disposable income, there is more crime. For instance, 77.5% of inmates revealed that they were under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, or crack cocaine when they committed the crime for which they were imprisoned (48.4 % alcohol, 18.4% crack cocaine, and 10.7% marijuana). They also indicated that they were more likely to engage in excessive intakes of drugs and alcohol when they had more money in their possession, and were more likely to commit crimes under the influence of those substances.

A common theme among the inmates was that they do not believe that they would be able to stop committing crimes unless their drug and alcohol addictions were under control. Some inmates even suggested that if they were to find gainful employment after prison, they should not be left responsible to spend their income because it would be squandered away on their drug and alcohol abuse problems. They suggested that the state provide means for their parenting and other responsibilities to be financially supported while they are rehabilitated.

Inmates also indicated that when they could not find work through odd jobs mainly in the agriculture and construction industries, they used less drugs and alcohol as a result of less finances. They were more likely to engage in violent and predatory crimes on the weekends when they had more money in their possession. However, they indicated that they resort to burglary and theft when they are reminded that others have much more material possession than themselves. Homes that were most recently built or renovated, especially by persons known to be currently residing overseas, once resided overseas, or frequently traveling overseas, are more attractive as burglary targets mainly because of perceived social inequality. Burglars believe that such persons have more to give away, and less to lose. Generally, the survey and interviews with HMS Prison inmates point to psychological issues, social issues, and unhealthy relationships with money as the major sources of criminal involvement.  Substance abuse, relative deprivation, low self control and low conflict management skills are at the roots of criminal motivation in Dominica. These factors are not very often a result of economic strain.

Directions for Future Research on Crime and Dominica Economy

Future research aimed at further understanding crime issues in reference to economic and other factors in Dominica should consider the following:

1. It is important to note that changes in Dominica GDP growth rates explain only 22% of changes on total indictable crimes, 1.6% of changes in violent crimes, and 28% of changes in burglary.  Therefore, future research must analyze demographic and other data to rigorously account for the other factors that account for over 72% of changes in crime rates in Dominica.
2. Although there is no convincing reason to believe that changes in crime growth rates are considerably due to changes in patterns of reporting crime to the police, it is important to account for unreported crimes. There is an urgent need to conduct victimization and self-reporting surveys in Dominica so that we do not rely completely on reported crimes to understand patterns of victimization among Dominicans. The self-reporting survey will allow us to understanding criminal motivation among persons other than those who have been, or are currently, incarcerated.
3. The relationship between unemployment and crime should also be directly analyzed in an urgent fashion. The analyses I have provided in this paper only examine GDP growth rates because such were the only data readily available at the time. I expect that unemployment statistics may not necessarily be considerably more insightful than GDP statistics because most of the offenders who commit the most common crime in Dominica (burglary) are not represented in employment statistics. This is because they mainly earn a living by performing odd jobs that become available when the construction, agriculture, and other sectors are more vibrant.  Such patterns of employment are not usually reported to the government and will not be reflected in employment statistics. However, employment statistics must be independently analyzed because patterns of employment cannot be accurately determined through analyses of GDP statistics.  Several class-related issues may be overlooked in the process.
4. Crime and economic research has mainly focused on the manner in which changes in economic developments affect criminal motivation and offending. The findings of this research highlight the need to also focus on how economic developments may actually increase criminal victimization.  

Implications for reducing Crime in Dominica

The implications of these empirical findings in reference to reducing crime in Dominica have already been stated above in italics and should be read over again after the research findings have been read and understood. A cautionary note is important. The statement “more money, more crime” should not be necessarily interpreted to mean “less money will lead to less crime.” 

Economic growth, especially employment creation, is important and encouraged for a variety of obvious reasons. However, one of the most important messages from this research is that, if left unchecked, economic growth is almost guaranteed to increase rather than decrease crimes.  This becomes possible because economic growth often disproportionately benefits some persons and not others, while relative deprivation and inequality increase in the process. Many of the problems that lead to criminal involvement in the first place (as explained above) are often ignored in the process of economic growth. As societies advance economically, additional criminal opportunities arise and new forms of victimization also emerge. Therefore, mechanisms for crime reduction must be important components of economic developmental plans. Otherwise, crimes will almost inevitably be fueled by economic growth.[4] 

Please direct any questions or comments to Dr. Peter K. B. St. Jean Department of Sociology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York (SUNY), 430 Park Hall, Buffalo, NY, 14260, by e-mail address doctorpeterstjean@yahoo.com, or by telephone at 716-645-2417*468.