Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Relative Deprivation Revisited: A Response to Miller, Bolce, and Halligan

Faye Crosby
The American Political Science Review
Vol. 73, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 103-112
DOI: 10.2307/1954733
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1954733
Page Count: 10
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Relative Deprivation Revisited: A Response to Miller, Bolce, and Halligan
Preview not available

Abstract

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.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
103
    103
  • Thumbnail: Page 
104
    104
  • Thumbnail: Page 
105
    105
  • Thumbnail: Page 
106
    106
  • Thumbnail: Page 
107
    107
  • Thumbnail: Page 
108
    108
  • Thumbnail: Page 
109
    109
  • Thumbnail: Page 
110
    110
  • Thumbnail: Page 
111
    111
  • Thumbnail: Page 
112
    112