CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE*

Abstract

Four traditional criminological theories—opportunity, control, subcultural, and differential association—are tested for their explanatory power in accounting for organizational compliance with regulatory laws. The primary data source is interviews with 410 chief executives of small organizations. Partial support is found for each theory; certain key concepts of each theory have a significant effect on regulatory compliance, net of a variety of characteristics of the nursing home, the residents in the home, and the inspection team. The results show that blocked legitimate opportunity has a significant effect on regulatory compliance, as does the structure of illegitimate opportunity. There is also an effect on compliance of participation in business subcultures of resistance to regulation. Belief in laws increases compliance with those laws as does differential association with or attachment to the upholders of the law. Overall, however, control theory and differential association lack explanatory power, and the explanatory power of subcultural theory is modest. Only opportunity theory explains a credible proportion of variance in compliance as a standalone theory. The significant effect of some but not all of the measures for each theory, coupled with the lack of significant explanatory power by three of the four theories, suggests the need for theoretical integration.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.