Criminology has traditionally focused on urban areas where crime visibly concentrates. However, since the 1990s, attention for ‘rural criminology’ has steadily increased. First, rural areas are confronted with partly different and less visible crime problems, such as environmental crimes. Second, public actors such as enforcement and other agencies are less present and ‘available’ in rural areas, and people on average trust the government less to provide support when necessary. This chronicle presents an overview of international and Dutch research in the context of rural criminology. The paper addresses cultural differences between urban and rural areas, high-volume crimes, gender-related violence, alcohol and drug abuse, environmental crime, and enforcement in rural areas.

Criminology, as an inherently interdisciplinary field, has built on anthropology (and other social sciences) in its development. This contribution addresses the question which insights in criminology have most been inspired by anthropology. First, it looks into the ‘criminal anthropology’ of Lombroso; then it embarks on an appreciation of the ethnographic research design within criminology (as first adopted by the Chicago School); and, finally, it assesses the link between anthropology, and cultural and global criminology. I conclude that anthropology has been valuable to our discipline on four levels: methodologically (in the importance of the ethnographic research design), theoretically (in its role in the development of symbolic interactionism and structuralism, for example), geographically (in the global scope of anthropological research), and analytically, in its experience with ‘doing ethnography’ in economically, politically and culturally embedded ways.

What role do Dutch criminologists play in the – especially since the onset of the so-called migration crisis – heated national and international debates on the criminalization of migration and border mobility? This will be the central question in this publication. Based on an inventory of national and international peer-reviewed publications written by Dutch criminologists, the article will reflect upon Dutch criminologists’ public role. In addition, based on the observed ‘silences’ in the scholarly debates on the criminalization of migration and border mobility, three avenues for further criminological research will be identified.

As a reaction to the perceived enforcement deficit of criminal law in the field of drug control, several countries implemented alternative regulatory strategies. One such strategy is the reregulating drugs, especially cannabis. Another strategy is the use of civil or administrative law to address drug-related crime. Especially the use of eviction to combat drug activities has become increasingly popular.
My PhD research focuses on these two developments within the field of drug control. More specifically, on the underlying rationales for the policies on recreational cannabis, the possibilities that international law provide to regulate recreational cannabis, the legal protection against drug-related evictions, and the explanation for the use of eviction to fight drug-related activities.

Terrorism could be regarded as an extreme type of (violent) criminal behaviour. Against this background, there is much to gain if criminological attention would be extended to terrorism. In this overview, the authors describe how and to what extent criminological theories may provide a significant contribution to underlying causes of terrorism. Previous criminological contributions to the field of terrorism have primarily taken a theory-extended approach, including routine activity theory, rational choice theory and strain theory. However, so far such studies lacked empirical data. Further, to this day, not much is known about the empirical applicability of other criminological theories, including desistance theories, which warrant particular attention. In order for criminology literature to contribute effectively to our understanding of terrorism and to pursue better counter-terrorism policies, empirical evidence should first be obtained. In this way, terrorism researchers, in close collaboration with criminologists, can deepen our theoretical and empirical understanding of this relatively underexplored field.

The most recent extensive study on political and administrative corruption in The Netherlands dates back to 2005 (Huberts & Nelen, 2005). Afterwards various studies have been conducted on related subthemes and areas. In this contribution, the state of affairs regarding political and administrative corruption – and the responses to them – in The Netherlands in 2018 is described, based on the results of these studies. Starting with an overview of the nature and severity of political and administrative corruption, the focus shifts to relevant developments in the control and prevention of corruption, partly addressing the causes of the phenomenon.

Fifty years ago, Gary Becker’s seminal article on the economics of crime and punishment was published. This paper reviews the theoretical developments in the field since then and takes stock of the strenghts and weaknesses of the economic approach.

This narrative aims to identify a number of challenges for the future of (green) criminology. It discusses what the three traditional criminological questions about criminalization, etiology and the social reaction imply in a ‘green’ context. For each of those topics, we analyse where the goals of green and mainstream criminology align and pay attention to research projects on these topics in the Netherlands and Belgium. In the end, this allows us to identify the following challenges for the future of (green) criminology: theoretical foundations, methodological creativity, interdisciplinary research projects and dialogue, and a research focus that goes beyond a preoccupation with the Global North.

For the occasion of the 40 ^th anniversary of the Netherlands’ Society of Criminology the author has analysed the Society’s archive and related the development of this professional organisation to the development of Dutch criminology in the period between 1974 and 2014. He distinguishes five turning points in this respect: between 1965 and 1974 we witnessed the emancipation of criminology as an autonomous discipline; the period 1978-1985 is characterised by a downfall of criminology at the universities; between 1992 and 1995 a period of restoration started, that is characterised by a focus on criminology’s policy-relevance; from 1999 to 2010 we can witness a recovery, in which academic criminology raised like a phoenix from its ashes; and from that time on we see the discipline broadening up again, in which the dominance of positivist research agendas is countered by a cultural criminology and a more critical attitude towards the production-oriented research policy in general. The bottom line is that the Society followed these trends imperceptibly: it was active when criminology did well and was ‘in rest’ when it did not. The article concludes with the question whether the Society has an active role to play in the public debate about the role of science and crime and punishment.