Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-hqrjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-12T07:32:20.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Faye Crosby*
Affiliation:
Yale University

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.

Information

Type
Article Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.