Research on neighborhood structural conditions like concentrated disadvantage and crime largely focuses on between-neighborhood differences; for example, places with more disadvantage are expected to experience higher homicide rates. However, empirical research often does not consider within-neighborhood dynamics of structural stability and change. Furthermore, several recent studies have found cross-sectional associations between structural variables and crime outcomes can vary significantly across units, violating a key assumption of global modeling strategies. The current work explores if and how historical changes in disadvantage influence neighborhood collective efficacy and homicide rates, net of the level of disadvantage at a given time point. Collective efficacy theoretically mediates the relationship between conditions and crime, and is hypothesized to be the mechanism through which structural change influences homicide rates. It is also hypothesized that spatial variation in cross-sectional associations between disadvantage and social outcomes can be explained by accounting for within-neighborhood changes in disadvantage. Using a sample of Chicago neighborhoods and ordinary least squares and geographically weighted regression models, I find that within-neighborhood changes in disadvantage significantly predict neighborhood collective efficacy, though the effects of this change on homicide rates are not completely mediated by collective efficacy. Within-neighborhood change completely accounts for spatial variation in cross-sectional associations, offering one explanation of prior research findings. Within-neighborhood structural changes appear to disrupt collective efficacy and contribute to higher homicide rates than predicted by the level of disadvantage alone. K E Y W O R D S : homicide; neighborhood dynamics; collective efficacy; GWR; Chicago. A key insight of the earliest social ecologists of the Chicago School—Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, Roderick D. McKenzie, Louis Wirth, and W.I. Thomas, among others—was to view the growth of the city not simply as an aggregation of the population into urban areas, but the outcome of multiple forces, institutions, and social processes like immigration and the building of social bonds. While these scholars largely focused on the then-current growth of the modern American city and The author thanks Derek Kreager and Lori Burrington for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article and Robert J. Sampson for his assistance with the PHDCN data, and to the anonymous reviewers at Social Problems. This research was previously presented at the 2013 American Society of Criminology annual conference. Direct correspondence to: Jacob H. Becker, Oakland University, 518 Varner Hall, Rochester, MI 48309. Email: jhbecker@oakland.edu. VC The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 1 Social Problems, 2018, 0, 1–20 doi: 10.1093/socpro/spy013 Article D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /socpro/advance-articloi/10.1093/socpro/spy013/5054614 by gest on 31 D ecem er 2018 the spread of urbanism, they laid the foundation for an enormous body of work on macro-level relationships between structural conditions, social mechanisms, and a host of outcomes including crime and juvenile delinquency (Bursik and Grasmick 1993; Cloward and Ohlin 1960; Cohen 1955; Osgood and Chambers 2000; Sampson 2012; Sampson and Groves 1989; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997; Shaw and McKay 1969; Veysey and Messner 1999). In contemporary criminological research, collective efficacy—an intellectual heir to the social disorganization theories of Clifford R. Shaw and Henry McKay (1969)—has become a dominant perspective of neighborhood structural conditions and crime, spurred by the work of Robert J. Sampson and others (Browning 2002; Bruinsma et al. 2013; Graif and Sampson 2009; Morenoff, Sampson, and Raudenbush 2001; Sampson 2002, 2012; Sampson and Groves 1989; Sampson et al. 1997; Sutherland, Brunton-Smith, and Jackson 2013). Advances during this wave of research have gone far in addressing critiques of earlier works’ “black box” problem, where the process(es) linking structural conditions to crime at the neighborhood level were largely inferred. One neglected area in contemporary criminological research, however, is the intrinsically dynamic nature of neighborhoods. Early Chicago School scholars were clearly aware of the importance of structural stability and change: Roderick McKenzie tentatively defined the emerging field of human ecology as the “study of the spatial and temporal relations of human beings as affected by the selective, distributive, and accommodative forces of the environment” (Park, Burgess, and McKenzie 1967:63-64; emphasis added), and the terms “process” and “change” occur often in Ernest Burgess’s discussion of the growth of the city, where he suggested social organization and disorganization were macro-sociological processes paralleling biological “processes of metabolism” in the human body (Park et al. 1967:53). Social consequences like crime do not emerge in neighborhoods out of whole cloth, but are the result of ongoing processes linking structural conditions to the outcome. These processes are inherently temporal; neighborhoods are embedded in complex systems of economic and social forces, which both produce and are the product of neighborhood structural conditions. Modern ecological theories of neighborhood crime continue to emphasize the importance of structural conditions for predicting crime rates. However, recent empirical work often fails to address the theoretically important role of within-neighborhood structural change—and its inverse, stability—over time, and its implications for relationships hypothesized to link conditions and crime rates. This is a substantial gap in the criminological literature. The theoretical influence of neighborhood conditions emerges over time as a function of dynamic processes, and research that focuses on between-neighborhood differences in the level of a particular condition—like economic disadvantage—overlooks the possibility that neighborhoods that appear similar in cross-section (e.g., have comparable levels of disadvantage) may have substantially different structural histories. The current research builds on prior work that found both the cross-sectional level of disadvantage and historical changes in disadvantage were significant predictors of neighborhood homicide rates (Becker 2016) by incorporating a measure of one mechanism theorized to mediate the disadvantage-crime relationship: collective efficacy. Structural changes are not expected to directly impact homicide rates. Instead, I hypothesize they influence the growth and operation of collective efficacy, or lack thereof, which in turn impacts homicide rates. My goal is to suggest future neighborhoods and crime research would profit from addressing the understudied role of within-neighborhood structural change, and encourage exploration of the inherent dynamism of neighborhood conditions, social processes, and crime. L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W Theorizing Within-Neighborhood Dynamics By assuming aggregate units like cities—and neighborhoods—are embedded in “metabolic” processes of stability, growth, and change, it is possible to view them from a developmental or life course perspective. Like individuals, cities are “born,” grow or decline, and in general change (or not) over time, and the dynamics of cities and neighborhoods are comparable to those of an individual’s life 2 Becker D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /socpro/advance-articloi/10.1093/socpro/spy013/5054614 by gest on 31 D ecem er 2018 course (see Sampson 2012). Borrowing the vocabulary of the age-graded theory of informal social control (Laub and Sampson 2003; Sampson and Laub 1993), aggregate units like neighborhoods follow trajectories of development over time, face transitions embedded in these trajectories that mark changes in structural or social conditions, and some transitions may act as turning points that redirect the developmental trajectory of the city or neighborhood. The theory speaks to the importance of “continuity and change over the life course” for individual-level criminal propensity (Sampson and Laub 1993:9; emphasis in original), by and large determined by informal social control stemming from social ties. If the life course of the individual plays a role in explaining individual offending and desistance, it seems likely the “life course” of the neighborhood would play a similar role. Several of the general principles of neighborhood criminology laid out by Robert Sampson (2013) speak to this point. He stresses the importance of both continuity (stability) and change (instability) in neighborhoods and argues that criminology must cultivate a “life course of place” (p. 12) aimed at answering the basic but difficult question of how a neighborhood’s past impacts its present (also see Kirk and Laub 2010; Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-Rowley 2002). In this sense, neighborhood history is the macro-level analogue to individual biography. It is possible within-neighborhood dynamics are, at least in part, responsible for findings of spatially variant cross-sectional relationships between structural conditions and crime outcomes. An important assumption of nonspatial cross-sectional models is spatial invariance—that the relationship between a given predictor and outcome is the same across geographic units, or “stationary” (Fotheringham, Brunsdon, and Charlton 2002). Work that directly tests this assumption generally finds it does not hold; associations between independent and dependent variables have been significantly different across counties (Light and Harris 2012), census tracts (Graif and Sampson 2009), block groups (Cahill and Mul

中文翻译：

---

邻里动态：芝加哥的劣势、集体效能和凶杀率

对集中劣势和犯罪等邻里结构条件的研究主要集中在邻里之间的差异上；例如，更不利的地方预计会有更高的凶杀率。然而，实证研究通常不考虑结构稳定性和变化的邻域内动态。此外，最近的几项研究发现，结构变量和犯罪结果之间的横截面关联可能因单位而异，这违反了全球建模策略的关键假设。当前的工作探讨了劣势的历史变化是否以及如何影响邻里集体效能和凶杀率，在给定时间点的劣势水平的净值。集体效能在理论上调解了条件与犯罪之间的关系，并且被假设是结构变化影响凶杀率的机制。还假设劣势和社会结果之间的横截面关联的空间变化可以通过考虑邻里内劣势变化来解释。使用芝加哥社区和普通最小二乘法以及地理加权回归模型的样本，我发现社区内劣势的变化显着预测了社区的集体效能，尽管这种变化对凶杀率的影响并不完全由集体效能调节。社区内的变化完全解释了横截面关联的空间变化，为先前的研究结果提供了一种解释。社区内的结构变化似乎会破坏集体效力，并导致比仅凭劣势水平预测的更高的凶杀率。关键词：杀人；邻里动态；集体效能；GWR; 芝加哥。芝加哥学派最早的社会生态学家罗伯特 E. 帕克、欧内斯特 W. 伯吉斯、罗德里克 D.麦肯齐、路易斯沃斯和 WI 托马斯等人的一个关键洞察是将城市的发展视为不仅仅是一个人口聚集到城市地区，但这是多种力量、制度和社会进程（如移民和社会纽带的建立）的结果。虽然这些学者主要关注现代美国城市当时的发展，但作者感谢 Derek Kreager 和 Lori Burrington 对本文早期版本的有益评论，感谢 Robert J. Sampson 对 PHDCN 数据的帮助，并感谢社会问题的匿名审稿人。这项研究此前曾在 2013 年美国犯罪学学会年会上发表。直接通信至：Jacob H. Becker，奥克兰大学，518 Varner Hall, Rochester, MI 48309。电子邮件：jhbecker@oakland.edu。VC The Author(s) 2018. 牛津大学出版社代表社会问题研究学会出版。版权所有。如需许可，请发送电子邮件至：journals.permissions@oup.com 1 Social Problems, 2018, 0, 1–20 doi: 10.1093/socpro/spy013 Article D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p. com /socpro/advance-articloi/10.1093/socpro/spy013/5054614 by gest 于 2018 年 12 月 31 日城市化的传播，他们为在结构条件、社会机制、以及一系列结果，包括犯罪和青少年犯罪（Bursik 和 Grasmick 1993；Cloward 和 Ohlin 1960；Cohen 1955；Osgood 和钱伯斯 2000；Sampson 2012；Sampson 和 Groves 1989；Sampson、Raudenbush 和 Earls维西和梅斯纳，1999 年）。在当代犯罪学研究中，集体效能——Clifford R. Shaw 和 Henry McKay (1969) 的社会解体理论的知识继承者——已成为社区结构条件和犯罪的主要观点，受罗伯特·J·桑普森 (Robert J. Sampson) 和其他（Browning 2002；Bruinsma 等人，2013；Graif 和 Sampson 2009；Morenoff、Sampson 和 Raudenbush 2001；桑普森 2002、2012；桑普森和格罗夫斯 1989；桑普森等人。1997年；萨瑟兰、布伦顿-史密斯和杰克逊，2013 年）。在这波研究浪潮中取得的进展在解决对早期作品“黑匣子”问题的批评方面取得了很大进展，其中在很大程度上推断了将结构条件与社区级别的犯罪联系起来的过程。然而，当代犯罪学研究中一个被忽视的领域是社区内在的动态性质。早期芝加哥学派的学者清楚地意识到结构稳定性和变化的重要性：罗德里克·麦肯齐 (Roderick McKenzie) 初步将人类生态学的新兴领域定义为“研究人类受选择性、分配、和环境的调节力”（Park、Burgess 和 McKenzie 1967：63-64；强调已添加），并且术语“过程”和“变化”经常出现在欧内斯特·伯吉斯关于城市发展的讨论中，他建议社会组织和解体是与人体生物“新陈代谢过程”平行的宏观社会学过程（Park et al. 1967:53）。像犯罪这样的社会后果并不是在社区中突然出现，而是将结构性条件与结果联系起来的持续过程的结果。这些过程本质上是时间性的；社区嵌入在复杂的经济和社会力量系统中，这些系统既是社区结构条件的产物，也是社区结构条件的产物。邻里犯罪的现代生态理论继续强调结构条件对预测犯罪率的重要性。然而，最近的实证工作往往未能解决邻里结构变化​​的理论重要作用——及其逆向、稳定性——随着时间的推移，以及它对假设将条件和犯罪率联系起来的关系的影响。这是犯罪学文献中的一大空白。邻里条件的理论影响随着时间的推移而成为动态过程的函数，而侧重于特定条件水平上的邻里差异的研究——如经济劣势——忽略了邻里在横截面上看起来相似的可能性。例如，具有相当程度的劣势）可能具有显着不同的结构历史。当前的研究建立在先前工作的基础上，该研究发现，通过结合一种理论化的机制来调节劣势 - 犯罪关系：集体，劣势的横截面水平和劣势的历史变化都是邻里凶杀率的重要预测因素（贝克尔，2016 年）功效。预计结构性变化不会直接影响凶杀率。相反，我假设它们会影响集体效能的增长和运作，或缺乏集体效能，进而影响凶杀率。我的目标是建议未来的社区和犯罪研究将受益于解决社区内结构变化的未充分研究的作用，并鼓励探索邻里条件、社会进程和犯罪的内在活力。LITERATUREREVIEW 将邻里动态理论化 通过假设像城市和邻里这样的聚合单元嵌入在稳定、增长和变化的“代谢”过程中，就可以从发展或生命历程的角度来看待它们。与个人一样，城市是“诞生”、成长或衰退的，并且通常会随着时间的推移而改变（或不改变），城市和社区的动态与个人生活的动态相当 2 Becker Dow naded rom http/academ ic。 p.com /socpro/advance-articloi/10.1093/socpro/spy013/5054614 by gest 2018 年 12 月 31 日课程（参见 Sampson 2012）。借用非正式社会控制的年龄分级理论的词汇（Laub 和 Sampson 2003；Sampson 和 Laub 1993），像社区这样的聚合单元随着时间的推移遵循发展轨迹，面临嵌入这些轨迹的转变，标志着结构或社会条件的变化，一些转变可能作为转折点，重新引导城市或社区的发展轨迹。该理论说明了“生命历程中的连续性和变化”对于个人层面的犯罪倾向的重要性（Sampson 和 Laub 1993：9；原文强调），主要是由源自社会联系的非正式社会控制决定的。如果个人的生命历程在解释个人的冒犯和抵制方面发挥作用，那么邻里的“生命历程”似乎也将扮演类似的角色。罗伯特·桑普森 (Robert Sampson)（2013 年）提出的邻里犯罪学的一些一般原则说明了这一点。他强调了社区的连续性（稳定性）和变化（不稳定）的重要性，并认为犯罪学必须培养“地方的生命历程”（第 12 页），旨在回答一个基本但困难的问题，即一个社区的过去如何影响其目前（另见 Kirk 和 Laub 2010；Sampson、Morenoff 和 Gannon-Rowley 2002）。从这个意义上说，邻里历史是个人传记的宏观类比。街区内的动态可能至少部分是导致结构条件和犯罪结果之间空间变异的横截面关系的发现的原因。非空间横截面模型的一个重要假设是空间不变性——给定的预测变量和结果之间的关系在不同地理单位之间是相同的，或者说是“平稳的”（Fotheringham，Brunsdon，和查尔顿 2002）。直接测试这个假设的工作通常发现它不成立；自变量和因变量之间的关联在各县（Light 和 Harris 2012）、人口普查区域（Graif 和 Sampson 2009）、街区组（Cahill 和 Mul