تلخیص
Pakistan Journal of Criminology
Vol. 9, Issue 3, July 2017 (42-58)
A Gender Perspective on Corruption: The Case of
Building Permits
Petter Gottschalk*
Abstract
The dominance of males in virtually all forms of crime is one of the
most well established empirical regularities in criminology. The gender gap
in crime, however, is not uniform, that is, it varies over offense type. Men
dominate in the commission of direct contact predatory street crime
involving violence, such as murder and robbery, while women commit a
somewhat larger share of minor property crime types such as shoplifting.
The gender gap in crime extends to white-collar crime. Proposed reasons
for gender differences in white-collar crime include lack of opportunity and
risk aversion among women. As it does with street crime, the gender gap in
white collar crime varies over different types of It came as a surprise that a
female officer in the building permits department in the city of Drammen in
Norway was detected for corruption. She confessed having received bribes
from a number of builders. When applying convenience theory, gender
theory as well at the gender model, however, it comes as no surprise that
also women are involved in corruption. The lack of detection is linked to
the lack of suspicion against female managers.
Keywords: Opportunity theory; gender theory; white-collar crime;
corruption; detection.
Biography
Petter Gottschalk is Professor in the Department of Leadership
and Organizational Behavior at BI Norwegian Business School in
Oslo, Norway. Dr. Gottschalk has published extensively on
knowledge management, fraud examinations, police investigations,
financial crime, and white-collar crime.
Introduction
Out of 405 convicted white-collar criminals in Norway from
2009 to 2015, only 8 percent were women. The female offenders
were convicted of bank fraud, employee embezzlement, tax evasion,
* Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior, BI Norwegian Business
School, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway, petter.gottschalk@bi.no, +4746410716
PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 43
and other kinds of financial crime. None of them were convicted of
corruption (Benson and Gottschalk, 2015).
In a variety of audiences, we have frequently asked the
following question: If you want a building permit for your new
house in an area regulated for recreation – such as a public beach –
who would you bribe: A female or male executive officer with the
same powers and in the same positions in your municipality? More
than ninety percent respond the man, less than ten percent respond
the woman.
Therefore, it came as quite a surprise when a female executive
officer in the City of Drammen in Norway was detected for
corruption in 2016. Deloitte (2017) – a global professional service
provider – was hired by the city to conduct a private internal
investigation of the building permit department by the
municipality’s control committee.
In this article we address the following research question: What
is the risk of detection for female offenders in corruption? Based on
the case study, we are unable to come up with a clear answer. But
we are able to discuss gender differences that are important to
understand when studying occurrences of financial crime by whitecollar
criminals by means of gender theory, opportunity theory, and
convenience theory (Gottschalk, 2017). And we are able to conclude
that the risk of detection is far less for women compared to men.
Deloitte Investigation
Mette Cranner (58) was in charge of building permits in the
municipality of Drammen. She was an architect and ran her own
architecture firm that went bankrupt, before she joined public
service. Her expenditure in private life far exceeded her income, and
she started to accept bribes from construction firms, land owners
and home owners. She confessed to corruption (Tommelstad and
Quist, 2016).
Deloitte’s review was based on the control committee’s
mandate, which essentially deals with organizational conditions.
Deloitte had to take into account that there was a police
investigation going on in parallel. Fraud examiners from Deloitte
collected data through document analysis, interviews and review of
58 building cases, which had been processed in the municipality’s
building permit department.
44 Petter Gottschalk
The building permit department is part of city planning,
building regulations and development projects, including
architectural and historical heritage, urban regeneration, the City’s
real estate holdings and environmental protection related to urban
development. Climate-friendly urban development is a key issue in
many municipalities.
All the investigated 58 building construction cases were
disputes discovered by the municipality in connection with the
corruption case and cases reported to Deloitte in connection with
the investigation. Thus, no random selection was made from the
building permit department’s portfolio. The violations of legal rules,
routines and guidelines that Deloitte (2017) detected, are based on
review of building permit cases, verified information through
interviews and document analysis.
The background for the review is that two employees at the
building permit department in the winter of 2016 were arrested
and charged with corruption after the municipality discovered
serious deviations and reported the two executive officers to the
police. The Deloitte (2017) investigation focused on organizational
issues. Investigators revealed no additional criminal offenses in
their review. Three incidents that were notified directly to Deloitte
were handed over to the police for their investigation.
According to the report of investigation by Deloitte (2017),
significant weaknesses over several years can be found in
management, leadership, control mechanisms, quality assurance
and internal audits in the department responsible for building
regulations and permits. These weaknesses and shortcomings have
led to violations of legal rules and internal procedures that should
ensure sound case handling work in the municipality of Drammen.
Several aspects revealed by Deloitte regarding permit applications
represent acts that cause speculation concerning misconduct.
A Gender Perspective
The dominance of males in virtually all forms of crime is one of
the most well established empirical regularities in criminology. The
gender gap in crime, however, is not uniform, that is, it varies over
offense type. Men dominate in the commission of direct contact
predatory street crime involving violence, such as murder and
robbery, while women commit a somewhat larger share of minor
PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 45
property crime types such as shoplifting (Benson and Gottschalk,
2015).
The gender gap in crime extends to white-collar crime.
Proposed reasons for gender differences in white-collar crime
include lack of opportunity and risk aversion among women. As it
does with street crime, the gender gap in white collar crime varies
over different types of offenses. In the Norwegian sample, women
were involved in fraud, manipulation and theft, but no corruption.
Steffensmeier and Allan (1996) suggested a gendered theory of
female offending. The theory focuses on the following elements and
interactions between them:
1. Organization of gender: Gender norms, moral development and
social control.
2. Biological factors: Physical, sexual and affiliate differences.
3. Criminal opportunities: Sexism in the criminal underworld,
access to skills, crime associates and settings.
4. Gender differences in crime: Women avoid more serious whitecollar
crime, such as insider trading, price-fixing, restraint of
trade, dumping of toxic waste, fraudulent product commerce,
bribery, and official corruption, as well as large-scale
governmental crime.
5. Context of offending: Many of the most profound differences
between the offenses committed by men and women involve
the context of offending, where context refers to the
characteristics of a particular offense. It might be the setting,
whether the offense is committed with the assistance of others,
the offender’s role in initiating and committing the offense, the
type of victim, the victim-offender relationship, whether a
weapon is used, the extent of injury, the value or type of
property destroyed or stolen, and the purpose of the offense.
6. Motivation for the crime: Tastes regarding risk, likelihood of
shame or embarrassment, self-control, and assessment of costs
versus rewards of crime.
Some white-collar criminals suffer from personality disorders
such as psychopathy. Psychopathy can be characterized by
fearlessness, antisocial behavior combined with high social
attention seeking, immunity to stress, egoism, and self-centered
impulsivity (Blickle and Schütte, 2017).
46 Petter Gottschalk
Gender theory allows for interactions among these six factors.
For example, criminal motivation will be influenced by both gender
organization and criminal preference (Steffensmeier and Allan,
1996: 478):
Gender norms, social control, lack of physical strength, and
moral and relational concerns also limit female willingness to
participate in crime at the subjective level –by contributing to
gender differences in tastes for risk, likelihood of shame or
embarrassment, self-control, and assessment of costs versus
rewards of crime. Motivation is distinct from opportunity, but the
two often intertwine, as when opportunity enhances temptation. As
in legitimate enterprise, being able tends to make one more willing,
just as being willing increases the prospects for being able. Like
male offenders, female offenders gravitate to those activities that
are easily available, are within their skills, provide a satisfactory
return, and carry the fewest risks.
One important message from gender theory is that white-collar
crime among women is strongly linked to opportunity. If, for
example, nobody is offering bribes to women in public office, then
the opportunity structure is deficient.
An Opportunity Perspective
Organizational opportunity is a distinct characteristic of whitecollar
crime that varies with the persons who are involved in crime
(Michel, 2008). An opportunity is attractive as a way to respond to
needs (Bucy et al., 2008). It is the organizational dimension that
gives white-collar criminals the opportunity to commit economic
crime and hide it in seemingly legal activities in the business. Whitecollar
crime is an offense based on specialized access.
The opportunity perspective holds that opportunity is a
fundamental cause of crime. The perspective assumes that
individuals make choices to engage or not engage in crime based on
the availability and attractiveness of criminal opportunities.
Situational crime prevention theory seeks to identify the factors
that influence the distribution and attractiveness of criminal
opportunities, and then to suggest ways in which attractiveness
might be reduced. The theory predicts that reducing the
attractiveness of criminal opportunities will lead to reductions in
crime (Ceccato and Benson, 2016).
PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 47
Persons at the pinnacle of a corporate hierarchy (or just about
any hierarchy, for that matter) who have considerable authority, are
not often challenged, insist upon results, and are accustomed to
getting their way. Therefore, various forms of dishonest and illegal
behavior that elite members are engaged in seem to be convenient
for the offenders. They believe they can ignore various reservations
they would have if they were lower down in the power structure,
and if they were expected to demonstrate leadership and achieve
ethical results. Greed, self-importance, immunity from criticism,
getting one’s way, and fear of falling all contribute to the
convenience of white-collar crime in the organizational setting. An
offender is in a position of pointing to the importance of one’s place
in an organizational hierarchy, one’s ability to cover one’s tracks,
blame others, or insist on deniability, and the pressure to achieve
results. White-collar criminals tend to engage in various rhetorical
strategies to make it sound to their subordinates as though they
have done nothing wrong.
Aguilera and Vadera (2008: 434) describe a criminal
opportunity as “the presence of a favorable combination of
circumstances that renders a possible course of action relevant”.
Opportunities for crime occur when individuals and groups can
engage in illegal and unethical behavior and expect, with a certain
confidence (Haines, 2014), that they will avoid detection and
punishment. Opportunity to commit white-collar crime can be
found at the community level, the business level, and the individual
level. At the community level, control regimes might be absent, and
entire industries may be available for financial crime. An example
here could be the construction industry, where one can find
instances of both cartels and undeclared work. Another example
could be tax collection authorities that are unable to trace and
control accounting figures from businesses, thereby opening up for
tax evasion with minimal risk of detection and punishment.
Huisman and Erp (2013) argue that a criminal opportunity has
the following five characteristics: (i) the effort required to carry out
the offence; (ii) the perceived risks of detection; (iii) the rewards to
be gained from the offense; (iv) the situational conditions that may
encourage criminal action; and (v) the excuse and neutralization of
the offense.
48 Petter Gottschalk
At the business level, ethics and rules can be absent, while
economic crime is a straightforward business practice. An example
here is subsidy fraud, where ferry companies report lower traffic
number to ensure greater government transfers. Another example
is internal invoice fraud, where the accounting department lacks
overview over who is allowed to approve what invoices.
At the individual level, greed can dominate, where the business
does not have any relevant reaction to economic crime. An example
here might be law firms where partners abuse money in client
accounts. Another example is corruption, where the bribed person
receives money from the bribing person, without anybody noticing
on either side.
Benson and Simpson (2015) write that the organizational
opportunity to commit white-collar manifests itself through the
following three characteristics: (1) the offender has lawful and
legitimate access to the premises and systems where crime is
committed, (2) the offender is geographically separated from his
victim, and (3) criminal acts appear to be legitimate business.
This is very different from street crime such as violence and
burglary, where the offender has no legal access, the offender is at
the same place as his victim, and the offense does not appear to be
legal. A fundamental difference between white-collar crime and
street crime is that while white-collar people conceal their crime
but do not hide themselves, street criminals do not conceal their
crime but hide themselves. Street crime is easily detected, while
street criminals are not always easy to find. White-collar crime is
hardly detected, but white-collar criminals are easy to find.
White-collar crime does not take place privately, it takes place
on the job. The organization is the venue for crime. McKenndall and
Wagner (1997) describe the opportunity by context and
environmental conditions that facilitate rather than prevent the
carrying out of criminal activities. For example in the case of
corruption, both the briber and the bribed are linked to a job
context. The briber typically uses company money to pay, while the
bribed receives the money personally because his organization is
attractive to the bribing company.
The organizational dimension through work represents the
offender’s scope for crime. By virtue of employment, ownership,
position, relations and knowledge, the offender can explore and
PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 49
exploit his association with the organization to commit financial
crime. As sales executive, the person can pay bribes, and as
procurement executive, the person can receive bribes. As finance
executive, the person may safely commit embezzlement by fixing
accounting figures, and as chief accountant, the person can
manipulate accounting to providing tax evasion. As chief executive,
the person can sign fake contracts or order fraudulent appraisals
that open up for bank fraud by asking the bank to finance future
income to be expected from contract partners and sale of real
estate. There are ample opportunities for economic crime by
executives and others linked to enterprises. Examples of others
include administrative managers, attorneys, auditors, bank
managers, board members, boat dealers, car dealers, concert
organizers, councilmen, management consultants, district
managers, entrepreneurs, investors, mayors, medical doctors,
members of parliament, nursery owners, property developers, real
estate agents, shipbrokers, stockbrokers and surveyors.
White-collar crime opportunities occur through the three
characteristics described by Benson and Simpson (2015). The
opportunities are greatest for top executives and other members of
the elite in society. In relation to convenience theory, the three
characteristics make it comfortable, easy and convenient to commit
financial crime to solve a problem or answer to a challenge. It may
be relatively simple and thus convenient for white-collar elite
members to hide criminal activities in the stream of legal activities,
and thus give grime an outer semblance of credibility in a
respectable business (Pickett and Pickett, 2002).
Opportunity makes a thief, it is sometimes stated. If the
availability of legal opportunities to solve problems and exploit
possibilities deteriorates, while illegal opportunities flourish and
are considered convenient, then white-collar individuals will
become less law-abiding. If fraud, theft, manipulation and
corruption are easily docked in the enterprise, while law-abiding
alternatives are invisible or hard to implement, then opportunity
makes an offender.
Organizational opportunity for economic crime depends on
intellectual and social capital that is available to the potential whitecollar
criminal. Intellectual capital is knowledge in terms of
understanding, insight, reflection, ability and skill. Social capital is
50 Petter Gottschalk
relations in hierarchical and transactional exchanges. Social capital
is the sum of actual and potential resources available for whitecollar
individuals by virtue of his or her position in formal and
informal hierarchies, networks, and matrices (Adler and Kwon,
2002). Formal as well as informal power means influence over
resources that can be used for crime.
White-collar offenders are often not alone when committing
financial crime. They may cooperate with people internally as well
as with people externally. If there is internal crime cooperation,
then it may be more convenient for each individual to participate.
An environment where crime is accepted strengthens the
organizational opportunity. If there is external crime cooperation,
then it may again be more convenient for each individual to
participate. External actors who, for example, submit fake invoices
or receive bribes, enter into a relationship with the internal actor(s)
with a code of silence.
The organizational dimension of white-collar offenses is
particularly evident when crime is committed on behalf of the
business. A distinction is often made between white-collar criminals
who commit financial crime for personal gain and white-collar
criminals who do it for their employer (Trahan, 2011). The first is
labelled occupational crime, while the second is labelled corporate
crime. Examples of corporate crime include manipulation of
financial figures for tax evasion and unjustified government
subsidies, bribery to obtain contracts, false loan applications to
obtain credit in banks, and money laundering in tax havens to
recruit securities clients. The organizational anchoring of crime is
evident in corporate offenses as crime takes place within the
business and to the benefit of business (Bradshaw, 2015).
While occupational crime is often hidden by the individual to
enrich himself by abusing corporate resources (Hansen, 2009),
corporate crime is often hidden by a group of individuals to improve
business conditions. In both cases, crime is committed by virtue of
position and trust in the organization, which prevents monitoring,
control, and accountability.
A Gender Model
Gottschalk (2014) has suggested a stage model to study gender
differences in white-collar crime. The stage model is illustrated in
PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 51
Figure 1. There are a total of five stages, which are discussed in the
following. The purpose of the model is to illustrate and explain how
common opinions documented in theoretical thoughts can predict
the decreasing female fraction from general population fraction to
imprisonment fraction. The common opinion in society is that men
represent the large majority within all kinds of crime, including
white-collar crime (Friedrichs, 2009). The model supports
Messerschmidt’s (1997) suggestion that gender is an important
predictor of criminal involvement – males dominate criminal
activity in society. Both Friedrichs (2009) and Messerschmidt
(1997) receive support from Steffensmeier and Allen (1996), who
list a number of empirical studies in different countries where men
commit far more crimes than women. Additionally, Blickle et al.
(2006) show that men were the dominant majority among whitecollar
criminals in Germany.
The relevant stage for this article is concerned with relative
detection, where the relative detection risk is estimated at 30
percent from crime stage to prosecution stage in Figure 1. This
means, for example, that when the detection rate for men is 10%,
then the detection rate for women is 3%. Out of 100 white-collar
criminals among men, 10 men will be brought to justice. Out of 100
pink-collar criminals, 3 women will be brought to justice. Theories
and studies are used in the following to argue the case of relatively
lower detection likelihood for women.
52 Petter Gottschalk
Figure 1: Model for estimation of female fraction in white-collar crime (Gottschalk,
2014)
The environment is generally less suspicious of women than
men. The environment tends to decriminalize women. To the extent
crime is detected, a woman is not considered or treated as the main
suspect. She is either treated as a criminal follower or as a criminal
victim in a typical criminal investigation when there are more
people involved in the crime. Detection risk is linked to general
reasons why women, to a far lesser extent than men, are convicted
of white-collar crime, namely that women generally are not
convicted of crime, when compared to men.
A simple experiment we have often performed in different
audiences is the question who you would bribe. You would like to
build a new home on a property that is regulated for recreation. You
have the choice of bribing a female or male official in the
municipality. Considering all the audiences, a large majority vote
almost exclusively men. Almost no-one would bribe a female official.
PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 53
There are two learning points here. First, very few people think that
a woman is corrupt, thereby reducing the detection rate. Second,
since almost no-one would bribe a woman, then a woman has less
opportunity to be a criminal, which is relevant in the crime star
discussed above.
Possibly women are smarter criminals than men. Again, when
an experiment is carried out in an audience, most agree with this
statement. One reason for relative smartness is that women may
tend to stop criminal activities before it is too late. They are smart
and manipulating, and often get their will through indirect ways.
Women are usually brought up and thought of as the weaker sex in
society, and thus have to resort to other ways to accomplish things.
It may seem that they only do work and carry out tasks that are
indeed important for the company to get done, while men only do
what they would like to do. Women monopolize areas where they
seem innocent, such as care, health and environment. Women tend
to talk most strongly about ethics, morale and social responsibility.
It is almost impossible for others to think, at the same time, that
they are criminals. Thus, the detection fraction for women will be
lower than men’s. That women talk most often about ethics, is
confirmed by a study carried out by Dodge (2007). She refers to her
Canadian study where 94 percent of all companies with an
executive board with three or more female members, had
established guidelines for conflict-of-interest. In companies with
only male board members, the fraction was 68 percent. Studies such
as this can help confirm that women, to a larger extent than men,
are concerned that the company should follow rules and policy lines
to develop and maintain a good reputation.
Some make a distinction between ethics and being ethical.
Research by O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005) shows no difference
between women and men when it comes to making ethical and
unethical decisions. Dollar et al. (2001) found, nevertheless, that a
greater fraction of women in parliament is associated with a lower
extent of corruption. But here, detection rate can play a role.
Research findings that woman are more occupied with ethics and
demonstrate stronger ethical attitudes than men is also confirmed
in earlier studies as well.
Lower relative detection rate can also be explained by the
tendency that white-collar crime only captures financial crime of a
54 Petter Gottschalk
large magnitude. This leads to a smaller female fraction, since the
average amount in female crime tends to be lower than the average
amount in male crime. In addition, women may be cleverer in
avoiding the radar and attention, to keep quiet and to stop crime at
an earlier stage. Relative low detection rate might also be explained
because investigators and detectives misunderstand female roles in
crime and tend to perceive women as a victim of crime. Women
typically present themselves as victims by claiming to be abused by
men.
On the other hand, men have a reputation to be the gender that
takes initiatives at high risk, and therefore are more easily detected.
They are also detected because they like to show their material
success. The police also contribute to the low detection fraction for
women. We can here compare with other kinds of crime. When the
police come home to a family because of home disorder, the main
suspect is always the man, and the man is typically removed from
the situation. If the police find documents in the home, it is assumed
that they belong to the man.
In a historical perspective, we may find that society has
accepted a gender culture where it is more normal for men to be
criminals. This can be explained by the confirmation trap, where
humans tend to try to confirm what they already think they know.
When there are so few convicted women, then there must be fewer
female criminals. When there are fewer female criminals, the police
will hunt male criminals. When female criminals are not hunted,
then fewer women will be convicted.
Yet another reason for a relatively lower detection fraction is
that organizations internally treat suspicion as well as detection
differently for women. Maybe it is because it is more normal for the
board, management and auditor to hand cases of male misconduct
and crime over to the police. One might be more afraid of stepping
wrong in terms of discrimination by accusing female employees of
crime. It can be most convenient to forget about female misconduct
and concentrate on male misconduct in internal investigations. It
can be argued that traditional investigations are more suited to
male suspects than to female suspects.
While some women may stop in time and not to be detected,
men typically have a longer criminal career than women (Cauffman
2008: 126):
PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 55
On average, males tend to have longer criminal careers than
females. Because it is difficult to assess when a criminal
career is “finished”, convincing evidence about the duration of
criminal careers is sparse. A long-term study by Roger Tarling
followed a sample of male and female offenders who were
born in 1958 through age thirty-one, finding that the average
duration of offending was 4.9 years for females, and 7.4 years
for males.
In our model, crime detection leads to prosecution. However,
sometimes this is not the case. Therefore, it is not only the detection
rate that is gender dependent, but also the prosecution rate in court.
If detection occurs within a business enterprise, the enterprise may
decide not to go ahead with prosecution. Maybe they want to
protect their reputation, keep it internal, and not have the public
lose confidence in the company. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
only three out of ten serious financial crime cases are reported to
the police by companies. This number is probably even lower for
female crime in the enterprise.
Conclusion
It came as a surprise that a female officer in the building
permits department in the city of Drammen in Norway was detected
for corruption. She confessed having received bribes from a number
of builders. When applying convenience theory, gender theory as
well at the gender model, however, it comes as no surprise that also
women are involved in corruption. The lack of detection is linked to
the lack of suspicion against female managers.
References
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. (2002).Social capital. Prospects for a new
concept. Academy of Management Review, 27 (1), 17-40.
Aguilera, R.V. and Vadera, A.K. (2008). The Dark Side of Authority:
Antecedents, Mechanisms, and Outcomes of Organizational
Corruption, Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 431-449.
Benson, M. and Gottschalk, P. (2015). Gender and white-collar crime
in Norway: An empirical study of media reports, International
Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43, 535-552.
Benson, M. L. and Simpson, S.S. (2015).Understanding white-collar
crime: An opportunity perspective, Routledge, NY: New York.
56 Petter Gottschalk
Blickle, G., Schlegel, A., Fassbender, P. and Klein, U. (2006). Some
Personality Correlates of Business White-Collar Crime, Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 55 (2), 220-233.
Blickle, G. and Schütte, N. (2017). Trait psychopathy, task
performance, and counterproductive work behavior directed
toward the organization, Personality and Individual Differences,
109, 225-231.
Bradshaw, E.A. (2015). “Obviously, we’re all oil industry”: The
criminogenic structure of the offshore oil industry, Theoretical
Criminology, 19 (3), 376-395.
Bucy, P.H., Formby, E.P., Raspanti, M.S. and Rooney, K.E. (2008).
Why do they do it?: The motives, mores, and character of white
collar criminals, St. John's Law Review, 82, 401-571.
Cauffman, E. (2008). Understanding the Female Offender, The
Future of Children, 18 (2), 119-142.
Ceccato, V. and Benson, M.L. (2016). Tax evasion in Sweden 2002-
2013: Interpreting changes in the rot/rut deduction system and
predicting future trends, Crime, Law and Social Change, 66, 217-
232.
Deloitte (2017).Gransking, Byggesaksavdelingen, Drammen
kommune (Investigation, Building regulations department,
Municipality of Drammen), Deloitte, Oslo, Norway, January 24.
Dodge, M. (2007). Women Who Commit White-Collar Crimes,
International Handbook of White-Collar and Corporate Crime,
Henry N. Pontellog Gilbert Geis (redaktører), New York:
Springer Science + Business Media, 379-405.
Dollar, D., Fisman R. and Gatti. R. (2001). Are women really the
"fairer" sex? Corruption and women in government, Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 46 (4), 423-429.
Friedrichs, D.O. (2009). Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in
Contemporary Society, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Gottschalk, P. (2014). Policing White-Collar Crime: Characteristics of
White-Collar Criminals, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, FL: Boca
Raton.
Gottschalk, P. (2017). Convenience in White-Collar Crime:
Introducing a Core Concept, Deviant Behavior, 38 (5), 605-619.
Haines, F. (2014).Corporate fraud as misplaced confidence?
Exploring ambiguity in the accuracy of accounts and the
materiality of money, Theoretical Criminology, 18 (1), 20-37.
PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY 57
Hansen, L.L. (2009). Corporate financial crime: social diagnosis and
treatment, Journal of Financial Crime, 16 (1), 28-40.
Huisman, W. and Erp, J. (2013).Opportunities for environmental
crime, British Journal of Criminology, 53, 1178-1200.
Messerschmidt, J. M. (1997). Crime as Structured Action: Gender,
Race, Class, and Crime in the Making, SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks, London.
McKenndal, M.A. og Wagner, J.A. (1997). Motive, Opportunity,
Choice, and Corporate Illegality, Organization Science, 8, 624-
647.
Michel, P. (2008). Financial crimes: the constant challenge of
seeking effective prevention solutions, Journal of Financial
Crime, 15 (4), 383-397.
O’Fallon, M. and Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A Review of The Empirical
Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 1996-2003, Journal of
Business Ethics, 59 (4), 375-413.
Pickett, K. H. S. and Pickett, J. M. (2002).Financial crime investigation
and control. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Steffensmeier, D. and Allan, E. (1996). Gender and Crime: Toward a
Gendered Theory of Female Offending, Annual Review of
Sociology, 22, 459-487.
Tommelstad, B. and Quist, C. (2016). Politiet: Her fikkhun 25.000
kroner (The police: Here she received 25.000 Norwegian
kroner), daily Norwegian newspaper VG, www.vg.no, published
January 30.
Trahan, A. (2011). Filling in the gaps in culture-based theories of
organizational crime, Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical
Criminology, 3 (1), 89-109.
Petter Gottschalk. (2017) A Gender Perspective on Corruption: The Case of Building Permits, Pakistan Journal of Criminology, Volume-09, Issue-3.
-
Views
472 -
Downloads
50