You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Relative Deprivation Revisited: A Response to Miller, Bolce, and Halligan
The American Political Science Review
Vol. 73, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 103-112
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1954733
Page Count: 10
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Political science, Urban riots, Test theory, Social psychology, Political revolutions, Violence, Riots, Document titles, Economic expectations, Correspondence theory
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
This article challenges some of the conclusions drawn in "The J-Curve Theory and the Black Urban Riots," by Abraham Miller, Louis Bolce and Mark Halligan (1977). Miller et al. reject relative deprivation theory and J-curve theory as valid explanations of black urban rioting. In my argument that Miller et al. are not justified in rejecting relative deprivation theory, I shall review four versions of relative deprivation theory to show how Miller et al. misrepresent the theory and to point out methodological problems with their operationalization of theoretical variables. Because these operationalization problems are far from atypical, I conclude with a call for greater methodological rigor.
The American Political Science Review © 1979 American Political Science Association