Main topic




The topic of this scientific work is placed in the domain of social anomie. The effects of the action of informal forms of social anomie cause social entropy and indicate the permanent topicality of the topic. Social anomie destroys social processes, devalues institutions and devastates the fundamental values on which the community rests, so the social significance of research is unquestionable. Scientific justification is contained in the need to shed light on phenomena and processes from the domain of social pathology. The aim of the research is to define, classify, sistematize the observed phenomena and to offer optimal solutions to overcome them. The work for the Subject of reserch has: discovering the forms of social anomie, pointing out the harmful effects of these informal forms of social behavior, as well as proposing solutions to overcome the resulting situation in order to remove the harmful effects. In their work, the authors start from: the observation method, the development method, the comparative approach, the cross-cultural method, and the numerous methods of legal sciences. The subject framework of the research moves in the area of: sociology, social pathology, political and legal sciences.

We have explained the logic of various forms of institutional action that cause social anomie and violate the basic rules of behavior on which a community rests. Anomic conditions point to illegal activity and violation of basic legal acts. And yet, social anomie goes beyond legal frameworks, pointing to the lack of social rules in regulating social relations that escape legal sanctions. Therefore, it is important to have a collective consciousness, which, among other things, distinguishes the value and moral elements of a community. Public opinion, public pressure, sense of responsibility, institutional procedures, as well as the rule of law, direct actors-in-situation towards those behaviors that significantly reduce anomic conditions.

keywords :


    • Ackerman, Susan Rose, and Bonie Palifika. 2016. Corruption and Government – Causes, Consequeces and Reform. Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Aristotel. 1988. Fizika. Zagreb: Globus, Sveučilišna naklada Liber.
    • Çarikçi İlker Hüseyin, Ahmet Sait Özkul, Aygen Demir Oksay, and Hasan Hüseyin Uzunbacak. 2009. “Favoritism and Nepotism in The Ottoman Empire.” International Symposium on Sustainable Development, 498–504.
    • Dohrenwend, Bruce. 1959. “Egoism, Altruism, Anomie, and Fatalism – A Conceptual Analysis of Durkheim’s Types.” American Sociological Review 24 (4): 466–473.
    • Durkheim, David Émille. 1897. Le Suicide. Paris: Félix Alcan Éditeur.
    • Ellwood, Charles. 1916. “Objectivism in Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 22 (3): 289–305.
    • Fazekas, Mihály. 2017. “Red tape, bribery and government favouritism: evidence from Europe.” Crime, Law and Social Change 68: 403–429.
    • Heidenheimer, Arnold, ‎Michael Johnston. 2011. Political Corruption – Concepts and Contexts. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
    • Hilbert, Richard. 1989. “Durkheim and Merton on Anomie – An Unexplored Contrast and Its Derivatives.” Social Problems 36 (3): 242–250.
    • Holmes, Leslie. 2015. Corruption – a very short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Hookway, Nicholas. 2014. “Moral decline sociology – Critiquing the legacy of Durkheim.” Journal of Sociology XX(X): 1–14.
    • Im Hohjin, and Chen Chuansheng. 2020. “Cultural dimensions as correlates of favoritism and the mediating role of trust.” Cross Cultural & Strategic Management 27 (3): 417‒445.
    • Jones, Douglas. 2022. “Clientelism and its discontents: The role of wasta in shaping political attitudes and participation in Jordan.” Mediterranean Politics. doi: 10.1080/13629395.2022.2114064.
    • Jones, Robert. 2013. Nepotism in Organizations. New Yourk: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
    • Krippendorff, Klaus. 1986. A Dictionary of Cybernetics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
    • Martz, John. 1997. The Politics of Clientelism: Democracy and the State in Colombia. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
    • Merton, Robert. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3 (5): 672–682.
    • Merton, Robert. 1949. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
    • Müller, Hans-Peter. 2013. “Société, morale et individualisme – La théorie morale d’Emile Durkheim.” Trivium 13.
    • Perić Diligenski, Tijana. 2018. „Koruptivno u srpskoj političkoj kulturi.” U Identitet, politička kultura, institucije, knjiga 7, ur. Vladan Stanković, 101–117. Beograd: Institut za političke studije.
    • Piras, Mauro. 2004. “Les fondements sociaux de l’agir normatif chez Durkheim et Weber – le rôle du sacré.” Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 27 (3): 139–166.
    • Prenzler, Tim. 2021. “Grey corruption issues in the public sector“. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice 7 (2): 137–149.
    • Stanković, Vladan. 2018. „Srpski identitet, politička kultura i odnos prema institucijama.” U Identitet, politička kultura, institucije, knjiga 7, ur. Vladan Stanković, 119–139. Beograd: Institut za političke studije.
    • Stein, Howard. 1984. “A Note on Patron-Client Theory.” Ethos 12 (1): 30–36.
    • Szakonyi, David. 2019. “Princelings in the Private Sector: The Value of Nepotism.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 14 (4): 349–381. doi:10.1561/100.00018087.
    • Wodarski, John, and Sophia Dziegielewski. 2002. Human Behavior and the Social Environment – Integrating Theory and Evidence-Based Practice. New York: Springer.
    • Zindović Ilija, i Vladan Stanković. 2012. „Legalizovani oblici korupcije u Srbiji – anomična stanja društvene entropije. Sociološki pregled XLVI (1): 17–34. doi: 10.5937/socpreg1201017Z.
PERIODICS Serbian Political Thought 2/2023 2/2023 УДК 316.624 343.352(497.11) 227-249