ON THE CAUSES OF “WHITE‐COLLAR” CRIME: AN ASSESSMENT OF HIRSCHI AND GOTTFREDSON'S CLAIMS

This article assesses Hirschi and Gottfredson claims about patterns and explanations of White‐collar crime. It points out several flaws in their analysis and shows (1) that the UCR offense categories of fraud and forgery are not appropriate indicators of white‐collar or occupational crime because the typical arrestee in these categories committed a nonoccupational crime; (2) that the demographic distribution (age, sex, race) of these “white‐collar” crimes is not the same as it is for most ordinary crimes; and (3) that the occurrence of these “white‐collar” crimes is not relatively rare. The implications of the findings for research and theory on crime are also discussed.