You are here

Socio-economic factors and their influence on enhancement of crime in Ukraine

Criminality is an actual social issue of our time around the world. The number
A predominantly useful character in Ukraine characterizes crime. The share of criminal mercenary crimes is about 67-72% in the structure of general crime in recent years. If you add the proportion of environmental crimes, crimes related to the illegal appropriation or use of objects of nature, crimes related to the sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, firearms and other crimes, combined by a useful motive, it turns out that close 95% of all crimes in Ukraine have a financial and economic character.
The main reasons for the increase in crime are:
- Economic instability of society;
- A sharp stratification of society for the rich and the poor;
- A significant percentage of the unemployed.
- Lacks of legislation.
Crime has a systemic character. Crime can be considered as output indicators. This indicator depends on social, political and economic factors and is in functional dependence. Under the factor should be understood a certain property of social processes and phenomena. The combination of these factors in the system can be an engine in the formation and changes of the state of the criminological situation.
Factors can be classified according to their criterion and stability: stable factors (geographical, climatic, features of the structure of the city economy, district, etc.) and changing (level of economic development, political, criminological and demographic phenomena).
The purpose of the study is to study and analyze the impact of economic factors on the state of crime in Ukraine, to identify trends and basic patterns of crime development based on the characteristics of these trends.
The analysis of socio-economic factors that affect crime shows that it is a direct extension of objective social contradictions and, first of all, in the field of economic relations.
Polarization of social groups by millionaires, an elite stratum of higher levels of power and administration (about 5%) and non-wage earners, pensioners, low-income citizens continue to be observed.
Growth of non-payment of wages, social assistance, pensions, depriving the population of previously guaranteed social and economic rights, reducing the living standard of many millions of masses worsen the already complex social environment. Criminal activity in the country can be explained from the point of view of the analysis of the availability of basic socio-economic indicators, which is a normal response to abnormal living conditions.
Research trends in crime, economic and social situation allows to build a statistical model that best approximates the model of socially significant phenomena and processes.
In order to assess the impact of socio-economic factors on the crime rate (the number of crimes per 10 thousand people) in Ukraine, we conducted a multivariate correlation-regression analysis, which identified groups of factors.
  • Social – the number of marriages per 1000 people; the number of divorces per 1000 people .; housing; the number of hospital beds is 10 thousand people; the number of pensioners;
  • Economic – investments in fixed assets, UAH million per 1,000 people average monthly wage, UAH for 1 worker.
The main factors in reducing the crime rate in Ukraine from the above considered is an increase in the ratio of marriages; reduction of divorce rate; increase in housing security; increase in fixed capital investments. In rural areas, there are distinct features that influence the rate of crime through reverse dependence.
Multi-factor regression analysis of the causes of crime allows you to obtain rating assessments and determine their role in the process of forming regional crime rates. The most important role among the aggregated factors played by socio-economic, which is influenced by 46.8% of the variance of the overall crime rate, 33.8% of the ratio of grave crimes, 41.2% of property crimes, etc.
Key words: crime, crime rate, socio-economic factors, trends, dynamics.
1. Gorjainov K.K. (1991). Kriminologicheskaja obstanovka (metodologicheskie aspekty) [Criminological situation (methodological aspects)]. Moskva: VNII MVD SSSR, 98 p.
2. Vepric'kij R.S. (2013). Faktori vplivu suspіl'nih procesіv na zlochinnіst' [Factors of the influence of social processes on crime]. Vіsnik Krimіnologіchnoї asocіacії Ukraїni,  No 5, pp. 99–102.
3. Luneev V.V. (1996). Rynochnaja jekonomika i prestupnost [Market economy and crime]. Moskva:  Obshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. No 3,  pp. 37-46.
4. Aver’janov V.B. (1998). Derzhavne upravlіnnja: problemi admіnіstrativno-pravovoї teorії ta praktiki [Public administration: problems of administrative-legal theory and practice ]. Kiїv: Jurіnkom Іnter. 432 p.
5. Garashhuk V.M. Gricenko І.S. (2007). Stanovlennja і rozvitok naukovih pogljadіv na osnovnі іnstitutu vіtchiznjanogo admіnіstrativnogo prava: monografіja [Formation and development of scientific views on the main institute of domestic administrative law: monograph]. Kiїv: Vidavnicho-polіgrafіchnij centr "Kiїvs'kij unіversitet". 335 p. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/VKhnuvs_2007_38_51.
6. Dolgova A.I. (2009). Teopeticheckie pocylki i obshhie itogi izuchenija teppitopial'nyx pazlichij ppectupnocti i ix ppichin [Тeopeтичecкиe пocылки и oбщиe итoги изучeния тeppитopиaльныx paзличий пpecтупнocти и иx пpичин]. Cb. nauch. tp. M.,  pp. 119-116.
7. Zopin G.A. (2012). Ponjatie i ocnovnye ppiznaki geogpaficheckoj tpancnacional'noj ppectupnocti [Understand and the main patterns of geographic special transcendence]. sb. nauch. tp.  M., pp. 89-112.
8. Mauricio Cárdenas. Economic Growth In Colombia: A Reversal Of ‘Fortune’? pp. 1-36. URL: (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.6975&rep=rep1&type=pdf
9. Goulas, E., & Zervoyianni, A. (2012). Economic growth and crime: does uncertainty matter? Applied Economics Letters , pp. 420-427. URL: (https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/ijme.2017.53.issue-1/ijme-2017-0004/ijme-2017-0004.pdf)
10. Mauro & Carmeci. (2007). A Poverty Trap of Crime and Unemployment. Review of Development Economics. Vol 11(3), pp.  450-462. URL:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2006.00350.x/abstract
11. Anderson, D. A. (1999). The Aggregate Burden of Crime. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp.  611-642. URL: http://www7.esc.edu/vvernon/AggregateBurden_Anderson99.pdf
12. Daniele & Marani. (2011). Organized crime, the quality of local institutions and FDI in Italy: A paneldata analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, Vol 27 ,  pp. 132-142. URL: http://www.ieb.ub.edu/files/Daniele.pdf
13. Peri, G. (2004). Socio-Cultural Variables and Economic. Topics in Macroeconomics Volume 4, Issue 1, pp. 1-34. URL:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/636c/cd530a74f002223e045e8029f79750c2e9a4.pdf
AttachmentSize
PDF icon bondar_2-2017.pdf748.57 KB