Institutional AnomieA state of normlessness in which social norms lose their power to regulate individual behavior. Theory (IAT) argues that high crime rates result from a cultural emphasis on economic success combined with institutional imbalance. When economic values dominate other social institutions—such as family, education, and politics—social control weakens, leading to higher levels of utilitarian, self-interested behavior and, ultimately, crime.
Key Points
Institutional Anomie Theory (IAT)
Main Proponents: Steven F. Messner, Richard Rosenfeld
First Formulation: 1994 (CrimeActs or omissions that violate criminal laws and are punishable by the state. and the American Dream)
Country of Origin: United States
Core Idea: Crime emerges when a society overemphasizes material success while its social institutions fail to balance or constrain economic motives. Institutional imbalance enables a cultural „anything goes“ mentality in pursuit of wealth.
Foundation for: Extensions of Anomie Theory, Comparative Research on Welfare States and Crime
Theory
Institutional Anomie Theory (IAT) is an extension of Merton’s anomie theory, developed by Messner and Rosenfeld to explain persistently high crime rates in advanced capitalist societies—especially the United States. They argue that American culture’s fixation on material success fosters institutional imbalance, where economic goals undermine non-economic institutions and social controls.
Drawing on structural functionalism, IAT identifies four core social institutions with essential societal functions:
- Family: SocializationSocialization is the lifelong process through which individuals learn and internalize the norms, values, roles, and practices of their society., emotional support, care
- Education: Transmitting values, social norms, skills
- Politics: Regulating collective goals, maintaining order
- Economy: Producing and distributing goods and services
For social order, these institutions should balance and regulate one another. However, in societies dominated by economic logic, this balance breaks down. Economic values, goals, and methods „invade“ non-economic institutions, weakening their ability to constrain utilitarian pursuits of wealth at any cost.
Messner and Rosenfeld describe three processes that illustrate how economic dominance undermines other institutions:
- Devaluation: Non-economic roles and values lose status (e.g., caregiving or civic participation seen as less important than income generation).
- Accommodation: Non-economic institutions adapt to economic demands (e.g., schools prioritize job training over civic education).
- Penetration: Economic language and logic pervade other spheres (e.g., universities adopt corporate management models, „return on investment“ logic in healthcare).
This institutional imbalance aligns with the cultural promise of the „American Dream“—material success for all through individual achievement. However, systemic barriers to legitimate opportunities generate widespread frustration and incentivize deviant adaptations (similar to Merton’s innovation mode), including crime.
Example: Education under Economic PressureInstitutional Anomie Theory suggests that when economic goals dominate society, non-economic institutions adapt to serve these goals. A common example is the education system.
Instead of emphasizing civic education, critical thinking, or social cohesion, schools and universities may prioritize job training, standardized testing, and marketable skills that promise higher incomes. Metrics like graduation rates and future salaries overshadow values such as democratic participation or ethical reasoning.
This „economic logic“ undermines education’s role in socializing shared norms and values. As schools increasingly operate like businesses—competing for students, cutting costs, marketing programs—they may neglect their broader social mission. According to IAT, this imbalance reduces non-economic forms of social control, weakens social solidarity, and can indirectly raise crime rates by promoting individualism and utilitarian values over collective responsibility.
Implications for Criminal Policy
According to IAT, reducing crime requires restoring balance among social institutions and curbing the overemphasis on economic success. This could include:
- Strengthening welfare systems to reduce economic strain and inequality.
- Investing in education, family support services, and civic institutions to bolster non-economic values and roles.
- Promoting cultural messages that value social solidarity, civic responsibility, and collective well-being over pure material gain.
Messner and Rosenfeld thus echo the sociological maxim that „the best criminal policy is good social policy.“ Crime prevention requires more than policing—it demands structural reforms that address institutional imbalance and cultural overemphasis on economic success.
Critical Appraisal & Relevance
IAT is praised for linking macro-level social structures to crime and offering a critique of unregulated capitalism’s social consequences. It broadens Merton’s framework to explain not only individual motivations but also institutional contexts that enable crime.
However, several criticisms have emerged:
- American-Centric Focus: Critics argue that IAT is shaped by the specific context of the U.S. „American Dream,“ with its intense materialism and individualism. Applying the model globally requires adapting it to different cultural and institutional contexts.
- Economic Reductionism?: While IAT critiques economic dominance, some argue it risks overemphasizing the economy’s role at the expense of other cultural or political dynamics that shape crime.
- Policy Feasibility: Critics question whether it’s realistic to rebalance institutions in societies deeply shaped by neoliberal economic policies and values. While IAT offers a compelling critique, translating its insights into policy is challenging.
Nonetheless, IAT remains highly influential in criminology and sociology. It has inspired comparative research on welfare states and crime rates, showing that societies with stronger welfare systems and more balanced institutions tend to have lower crime rates. The theory continues to inform debates about inequality, social policy, and crime prevention.
Literature & Further Reading
Primary Literature
- Messner, S.; Rosenfeld, R. (2007). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA, Thomson/Wadsworth
- Messner, S.; Rosenfeld, R. (2009). Institutional Anomie Theory: A Macro-sociological Explanation of Crime. In: Handbook on Crime and Deviance. SpringerLink, S. 209-224.
Secondary Literature
- Vito, G./Maahs, J./Holmes, R. (2007): Criminology. Theory, Research, and Policy. S. 158-160.
- Larry J. Siegel (2009): Criminology (10th edition). Thomson Wadsworth; S. 177-178.
Further Information
For more on empirical tests of IAT, policy implications, and critiques:
- Chamlin, M. B.; Cochran, J. (2007). An Evaluation of the Assumptions Underlying Institutional Anomie Theory. Theoretical Criminology 11(1), 39-61.
- Hirtenlehner, H. et al. (2010). Culture, Institutions and Crime. A Test of Institutional Anomie Theory Using European Victimization Data. In: Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 93(4), 274–299.
Video: Messner and Rosenfeld explain Institutional Anomie Theory
