Public Choice

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 31–46 | Cite as

An economic approach to riot analysis

  • J. Patrick Gunning
Article

Summary

The popular view that a riot is a spontaneous release of hostility by the frustrated and oppressed masses was rejected in favor of a notion of riot based upon motivation for personal gain by riot participants. The main difference between a riot and other forms of illegal activity was said to be the presence of a large and possibly sympathetic crowd.

Since the ways of gaining from a riot are varied and differ among individuals, there are several ways to reduce the probability of riots. The particular method chosen by a riot analyst depends, to a large extent, on his personal biases. Two of these were discussed: (1) a desire for a redistribution of income in the direction of the rioting group, and (2) the maintenance of the constancy of deterrent power of laws in all situations. It was found that adoption of (1) leads to the advocacy of many of the riot-prevention techniques which are popularly discussed. The adoption of (2) supports the assignment of heavier penalties for criminal acts committed during riots.

Keywords

Public Finance Illegal Activity Economic Approach Spontaneous Release Personal Gain 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berkowitz, Leonard. “The Study of Urban Violence: Some Implications of Laboratory Studies of Frustration and Aggression.”Riots and Rebellion. Edited by Louis H. Masotti and Don R. Bowen. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1968.Google Scholar
  2. Bingham, Jonathan B., and Bingham, Alfred M., eds.Violence and Democracy. New York: World Publishing Co., 1970.Google Scholar
  3. Blank, Andrew. “Effects of Group and Individual Conditions on Choice Behavior.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8 (1968): 194–98.Google Scholar
  4. Cataldo, E., Johnson, R., and Kellstadt, L. “Social Strain and Urban Violence.”Riots and Rebellion. Edited by Louis H. Masotti and Don R. Bowen. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1968.Google Scholar
  5. Chikota, Richard A., and Moran, Michael C., eds.Riot in the Cities. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  6. Dion, Kenneth L., Baron, Robert S., and Miller, Norman. “Why Do Groups Make Riskier Decisions than Individuals?”Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 5. Edited by Leonard Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  7. Heaps, Willard A.Riots, U.S.A. New York: Seabury Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  8. Lieberson, Stanley and Silverman, Arnold R. “The Precipitants and Underlying Conditions of Race Riots.”American Sociological Review 30(December 1965).Google Scholar
  9. Methvin, Eugene H.The Riot Makers. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1970.Google Scholar
  10. Obershall, Anthony. “The Los Angeles Riot of August, 1965.”Social Problems 15 (Winter 1968).Google Scholar
  11. Reynolds, Harry W., Jr. “Black Power, Community Power, and Jobs.”Riots and Rebellion. Edited by Louis H. Masotti and Don R. Bowen. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1968.Google Scholar
  12. Schulman, Jay. “Ghetto-Area Residence, Political Alienation, and Riot Orientation.”Riots and Rebellion. Edited by Louis H. Masotti and Don R. Bowen. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1968.Google Scholar
  13. Shellow, Robert, and Roemer, Derek V. “The Riot That Didn't Happen.” SocialProblems 14 (Fall 1966).Google Scholar
  14. The National Advisory Committee on Civil Disorders.Report of the National Advisory Committee on Civil Disorders. 1968.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Center for Study of Public Choice Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Patrick Gunning
    • 1
  1. 1.State University of New York at BrockportUSA

Personalised recommendations