Revisão sistêmica da Teoria da Desorganização Social: um estudo sobre vitimização em Belo Horizonte, Rio de Janeiro e Curitiba
This dissertation investigates the determinants of victimization in the neighborhoods of three state capitals, with an emphasis on mechanisms that foster the development of various forms of social control in interaction. Social control was treated therefore as an actor to clarify the relationship be...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | tesis de maestría |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2009 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/EJAO-8KNGK4 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/1843/EJAO-8KNGK4 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Sociologia Vitimização Desorganização Social Criminalidade urbana Controle social Organização social Crime |
| Sumario: | This dissertation investigates the determinants of victimization in the neighborhoods of three state capitals, with an emphasis on mechanisms that foster the development of various forms of social control in interaction. Social control was treated therefore as an actor to clarify the relationship between structural characteristics and crime, an association suggested by the Social Disorganization Theory in the mid-twentieth century. For the analysis we used secondary data from victimization surveys organized by the Centro de Estudos de Criminalidade e Segurança Pública, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (CRISP / UFMG) in partnership with other research centers in the country between 2005-2006, resulting in the possibility comparison of databases related to victimization in Belo Horizonte, Curitiba and Rio de Janeiro. Data were analyzed from Hierarchical Generalized Linear Models (MLGH) suitable for estimating the chance of success in a particular phenomenon, in view, multilevel data structure. In this case, the levels in question were made by respondent and census tract, neighborhood proxy. |
|---|