The document discusses the debate around defining white-collar crime. There is no consensus definition as it is conceptually different from other crimes. Some scholars argue the definition should focus on the characteristics of the offender, like their high social status, while others maintain the characteristics of the offenses are more useful. Depending on the definition used, different conclusions can be drawn about white-collar offending. The document reviews offender-based and offense-based perspectives on defining white-collar crime and their limitations.

1. The conceptof white-collarcrime hasa longand controversial history.Issuesregarding
itsdefiningfeaturesorcharacteristicshave beenheavilydebatedamongcriminologists—so
much sothat no widespreaddefinitioncurrentlyexists.The difficultiesassociatedwithdefiningwhite-collar
crime,inpart, stem
fromthe fact thatit isconceptuallydifferentfromothertypesof crime.Specifically,whitecollarcrime isnotan
official,legallyrecognizedcategory;rather,itisasociological construct
that doesnotclearlydelineate whatactionsoractivitiesshould
Some scholars,forexample,argue thatthe definingfeaturesof white-collarcrime should
be basedon the characteristicsof the offender(Sutherland,1983); othersmaintainthatthe
characteristicsof the actual offensesare more useful forstudyingandunderstandingwhite-collar
crime (Edelhertz,1970).Dependingonwhichdefinitionisused,the measurementof whitecollarcrime is
affected—inparticular,the use of differentdefinitionsaffectswhoisidentifiedas
a white-collaroffenderandwhatconclusionscanbe drawn aboutwhite-collaroffending.The
followingparagraphsprovide anoverview of the debate regardinghow white-collarcrime should
be defined andmeasured.Itdoessobyreviewingdifferentdefinitionsof white-collarcrime and
addressingthe conceptual andmethodological issuesassociatedwitheachperspective.Also
discussedinthissectionare the limitationsof the available datafromwhichgeneralizations
regardingwhite-collarcrime canbe made,especiallyastheypertaintoincarceratedwhite-collar

2. offenders.
Offender-BasedPerspectives
The most well-knowndefinitionof white-collarcrime wasputforthby EdwinSutherland
(1949/1983), whosaw itas a crime committedbya personof respectabilityandhighsocial
statusin the course of hisoccupation.Suchoffenders,Sutherlandnoted,were tobe
differentiatedfrompersonsof lowsocial status,whoviolate the lawsdesigned toregulate their
[1/13, 2:23 AM] ���:occupational activity,aswellasthose of highsocial status,whocommitcrimesunrelated
to their
occupation.Withitsemphasisonthe offender’ssocial statusandreputation,Sutherland’s
definitionisthe mostwell-knownandinfluential exampleof the offender-basedapproachto
understandingwhite-collarcrime (Benson&Simpson,2015). Inaddition,Sutherlandargued
that civil andadministrativeviolationsshouldalsobe countedaswhite-collarcrimes.
From the beginning,Sutherland’sdefinitionelicitedcontroversyamonglegalscholars,who
chidedhimforincludingviolationsthatwere notconsideredcriminal,suchasdecisionsagainst
companiesbyadministrative andregulatoryagencies(Tappan,1947). That isto say,Sutherland
was criticizedbymembersof the legal community,whoarguedthatonlyactspunishableby
criminal lawconstitute true crime.Sutherlandrespondedbynotingthatmanycivil law

3. proceedingsmirrorthose of criminal law,andthattheirexclusionfromanalysesarbitrarilylimits
the range of white-collarcrimes.
ScholarsalsoquestionedwhetherSutherland’semphasisonthe offender’ssocial status
shouldbe a central feature of white-collarcrime.Indeed,while hisintentionwastoshedlighton
upperworldimpropriety,whichwasoftentimesomittedfromanalysesdue toclass-biased
research,Sutherland’sdefinitionposesanarrayof measurementchallenges.AsBensonand
Simpson(2015) pointedout,“the mainprobleminusingsocial statusasa definingelementof
crime isthat it cannot thenbe usedas an explanatoryvariable becauseitisnotallowedtovary
independentlyof crime”(p.9).Assuch,it preventsresearchersfromassessinghow an
individual’ssocialstatusaffectsthe type andseriousnessof white-collaroffensestheycommit.
So,while fraudmaybe committedbybotha corporate executiveandanentry-level employee,
onlythe formerwouldfitthe offender-baseddefinitionof white-collarcrime.Inotherwords,the
opportunitystructuresthatfacilitate criminal activityforexecutiveemployeesandCEOsdiffer
[1/13, 2:23 AM] ���:dramaticallyfromthose workinginentry-levelpositions,andfocusingsolelyonsocial
status
completelyomitswhite-collar-type crimescommittedbythe lattergroupfromanalyses.
Additionally,adoptinganoffender-basedapproachmakesitdifficulttouse officialrecordsand

4. data, since mostsourcesdonot have the informationneededtoclassifypeopleonthe basisof
theirrespectabilityorsocial status.
Offense-BasedPerspectives
In orderto remedythe issuesassociatedwithusingoffender-basedapproaches,scholars
beganto examine white-collarcrime inastatus-neutral fashion,withaprimaryfocusonthe
illegal nature of the act.HerbertEdelhertz(1970) wasthe firstscholar to embrace this
perspective,commonlyreferredtoasthe offense-basedapproach.He proposedthatwhite-collar
crime be definedas“illegal actscommittedbynon-physical meansandbyconcealmentorguile
to obtainmoneyorproperty,to avoidpaymentorlossof moneyor property,orto obtain
businessorpersonal advantage”(Pp.19-20).Asopposedtooffender-baseddefinitions,then,the
offense-basedperspective defineswhite-collarcrime accordingtothe meansbywhichan offense
iscarried out—thatis,ina non-physical,deceptive manner.Similarly,Shapiro(1990,p. 17)
positedthata definingfeature of white-collarcrime isthe violationof abuse ortrust,and thatthe
notionof white-collarcrime isbestunderstoodwhenthe characteristicsof offendersare
separatedfromtheirtransgressions.Provocatively,she arguedthatresearchersshouldfocuson
“collaringthe crime insteadof the criminal.”

5. Offense-basedapproachestostudyingwhite-collarcrime have gainedpopularityamong
scholarsfor a numberof reasons.First,asBensonand Simpson(2015) explain,because offensebaseddefinitions
make no mentionof the actor’ssocial statusor the social locationof the crime,
theyare free tovary independentlyof the actand can therefore be usedaspredictorvariables.In
[1/13, 2:24 AM] ���:otherwords,offense-baseddefinitionsallowresearcherstoexaminevariationinhow
one’s
social statusinfluencesthe nature of—aswell asthe social andlegal response to—the whitecollaroffense.
Second,researchersare able tocompare and determinewhetherwhite-collar
offensescommittedduringthe course of one’soccupationdifferfromoffensescommittedin
othersettings.Lastly,offense-baseddefinitionsallow researcherstomore easilyuse official data
sourceswhendrawingsamplesof white-collaroffenders, since theyonlyneedtoidentifythe
individualswhoseoffensesmeetthe establishedcriteria(e.g.,non-physical crimesbasedon
deception).
While the offense-basedperspective hasbeenacceptedbymanyresearchers,other
scholarstake issue with the definition,whichtheyview asmissingorignoringsome of the most
importantcharacteristicsof white-collarcrime.Forinstance,ithasbeenarguedthatoffensebaseddefinitions
endup focusingonrelativelytrivial crimescommittedbyordinarypeople who
somehowfoundtheirwayintothe criminal justice system.Thisapproachleadsresearchersto
neglectthe role of the powerful corporationsandexecutivesthatoriginallypiquedSutherland’s

6. interest(Braithwaite,1985; Geis,1996; Wheeleret al.,1988a). For example,accordingtothe
offense-basedperspective,the alcoholicwhoconshisfriendoutof a bottle of whiskey
technicallymeetsthe criteriaforawhite-collaroffender.Inthe same
way,some scholarspositthat white-collarcrimesconstitute nothingmore than“crimesof
specializedaccess,”whichcanoccur at any occupational level andwithinalarge demographic,
rangingfromteenagerstocorporate executives(Felson,2002). The mainproblemisthat
offense-baseddefinitionsof white-collarcrime,whichfocusonoffensespertainingtomoneyand
property,oftenendupanalyzingindividualswith“blue collars”(Braithwaite,1985). Indoing
so,offense-basedapproachesfrequentlyomitfromtheiranalysescrimescommittedbypowerful:individuals
and corporations,whoare able to avoidofficial labelingorsanctioninginthe first
place and thusneverappearinginresearchsamples.