The Asian Criminological Paradigm and How It Links Global North and South: Combining an Extended Conceptual Toolbox from the North with Innovative Asian Contexts

In their recent seminal paper ‘Southern Criminology’, Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo (2016) address the issue of the global divide between South/North relations in the hierarchal production of criminological knowledge. They point out that the divide privileges theories, assumptions and methods that are largely based on the empirical specificities of the global North. Carrington et al. contend that the dominance of global North criminology has led to a severe underdevelopment of criminology in the global South, except ‘in Asia, with the establishment of the Asian Criminological Society and its journal’ (Liu 2009, in Carrington et al. 2016: 3). Carrington et al. propose an important task of bridging the global divide through further developing criminology in the global South. My present paper reviews the development of Asian criminology under the framework of the Asian Criminological Paradigm (Liu 2009). I primarily review the conceptual and theoretical developments, to suggest strategies that can contribute to the task of bridging the gap between global North and South. What Asian criminology has done is expand the theoretical tool box originally developed in the global North through the strategies of transportation of theories, elaboration of theories, and proposing new concepts and theories based on the empirical grounds of Asian contexts.


Introduction
In their recent seminal paper 'Southern Criminology', Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo (2016) address the issue of the global divide between South/North relations in the hierarchal production of criminological knowledge. This divide privileges theories, assumptions, and methods that are largely based on the empirical specificities of the global North. The authors drew upon the concept discussed by Connell (2007), who analyzes the profound global North/South divide between the metropolitan states of Western Europe and North America, on the one hand; and the countries of Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania, on the other. Along this line of analysis, Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo (2016: 3) argue for a strong need in criminology 'to more usefully decolonize and democratize the toolbox of available criminological concepts, theories and methods'.
Linking the insights of Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo (2016) to the literature of comparative criminology, the dominance of Western research and the underdevelopment of comparative research involving non-Western countries is highly relevant to the issue of southern criminology. For the most part, comparative research has mainly been conducted by Western researchers with the aim of reflecting on how their own criminal justice systems have developed. Studies have mainly made comparisons with criminal justice systems in other Western countries (for example, Nelken 2010), except for a few cases such as Japan (Johnson 2002). In general, comparative criminology is largely a Western enterprise.
The lack of comparative studies involving non-Western social contexts and justice systems and the dominance of Western-based criminology is a major weakness of the discipline of criminology as well as of comparative criminology. This important limitation of criminology has been recognized by prominent scholars (Aas 2012;Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo 2016;Connell 2007;Walklate 2015;Young 2011;). These scholars suggest the critical importance of developing non-Western criminologies for the growth of global criminology. Carrington and colleagues (2016: 1) proposed not only the critical issue of the global divide in criminology, but also the crucial next steps for the development of global criminology. The general guideline, as stated in their paper 'is not to denounce but to re-orient, not to oppose but to modify, not to displace but to augment. … It is primarily concerned with the careful analysis of networks and interactions linking South and North'. Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo (2016) also point out that the dominance of global North criminology has led to the serious under-development of criminology in the global South, except 'in Asia, with the establishment of the Asian Criminological Society and its journal' (Liu 2009, in Carrington et al. 2016. Sandra Walklate (2016), in her keynote speech 'Whither criminology?' at the seventh annual conference of the Asian Criminological Society in Hong Kong in 2015, also analyzed the problem of dominance of Western criminology. Walklate commented that: Asian criminology, in being neither here nor there (Carrington 2015), stands at the positive intersection of the north-south and east-west in terms of geography and culture. It is well placed to think differently, both conceptually and methodologically, about the criminological enterprise and the debates that such different thinking might generate. The discipline as a whole may benefit from this IJCJ&SD 75 Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2017 6(1) (Braithwaite 2015) but, at a minimum, and echoing Cottee (2014) and the story with which this paper began, surely we can talk about this? Indeed, we must.
Both Carrington's and Walklate's views suggest the usefulness of reviewing and understanding the development processes in Asian criminology for constructing strategies to accomplish the tasks of linking the North and South, as proposed by Southern criminologists.
The present paper reviews the history of Asian criminology, primarily the aspect of conceptual and theoretical development under the framework of the Asian Criminological Paradigm (Liu 2009), and suggests strategies that can contribute to the task of bridging the gap between North and South. The Asian Criminological Paradigm is a framework that consists of a set of relatively unified concepts, approaches and institutionalization of criminology, and which forms a common basis for dialogue, debate and discussion, as well as some generally shared standards for evaluation of research and programs and a relatively clearer direction for advancement. The institutionalization includes the establishment of academic society and other academic networks, education programs and academic journals, thus facilitating communication within the Asian criminological community and with other parts of the world.
The theoretical took box refers to the concepts, theories and ideas that have been demonstrated to work under Asian contexts. Asian criminology established its conceptual tool box through extending that of the North via three strategies: transportation (testing the concepts and theory under Asian contexts); elaborations (extending the concepts to new ones that offer better explanations); and proposing new innovative theories. These conceptual developments with insights from Asian contexts can make important contributions to general criminological knowledge. Asia is a large region with very diverse culture and social systems (Liu 2009); we use the concept of Asia first of all as a convenient geo-political construct. Further, despite the diversity within Asia, it is widely recognized that, overall, there are larger differences between the Western and non-Western cultures, particularly with regard to the current approach to Southern theory and research.
This paper reviews the development of the Asian Criminological Paradigm and its accompanying institutions as a primary strategy for the growth of Asian criminology. The Asian Criminological Paradigm has key concepts and theories at its core, as well as research strategies and approaches. Given space limitations, this paper focuses on strategies for conceptual and theoretical growth and recent conceptual innovations from Asia. The three primary strategies are: transportation of Western theories; transformation of these theories; and proposing concepts and theoriesdifferent from Northern Theory in revolutionary ways -based on Asian empirical grounds. These three stages link the North and Asia in a broader theoretical framework of global and comparative criminology.

The development of Asian criminology and the Asian Criminological Paradigm
Scholars in Asia have studied crime and crime control since Ancient times. For example, Confucius (551-479 BC) argued that there are two primary causes of crime: poverty and lack of moral education. With regard to poverty, Confucius contended in The Analects (Chapter 14, 'The Constitutional Questions') that 'to be poor and not resentful is far harder than to be rich, yet not presumptuous'. 1 Confucius also considered lack of moral education to be a source of crime. In The Analects (Chapter 15, 'Duke Ling of Wei'), he said '[a] gentleman can withstand hardships; it is only the lower man who, when submitted to them, will lose his self-control and commit criminal behavior'. 2 In other words, he is saying that the poor have little access to education, which leads to a lack of morals, increasing the chance of becoming a criminal offender (Liu 2001). Thus the preferred strategy to control crime is by means of 'Li', which is the education of moral code, rather than by 'Fa', that is formal law, despite also affirming the importance of that formal law (Liu 2009 In modern times, scholars in Asia have studied crime and its control dating back to the early 1900s. Belknap (2015) conducted a search of Web of Science for all papers on crime, crime control, and criminal justice after 1900 from all disciplines. The results indicate that the earliest publication related to crime is from India in 1913. The average year of the earliest publication across the Asian countries was 1970 (Belknap 2015). Compared with Europe and North America, development of criminology in Asia has been very slow until the last decade.
My paper 'Asian criminology -challenges, opportunities, and directions' (Liu 2009) traced the development of, and identified some major challenges for, criminology in Asia, and proposed strategies and directions for advancing Asian criminology. A primary challenge is the extent of diversity across Asian cultures and societies, 'manifested in different languages, different legal systems, and diversity in crime and crime control systems and practices' (Liu 2009: 4). I further observed that cross-national criminological research is made difficult by 'diverse definitions of crimes and laws and on diverse interpretations of meaning by different cultures ' (2009: 6). The paper also reviewed the varied developmental stages of criminology in Asia. The most developed countries and regions in Asia include India, (which recently held the 39th annual conference of India Society of Criminology), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mainland China, Philippines, and Thailand. In these places, a substantial number of students have graduated from Western university criminology programs, particularly US ones, with doctoral and graduate degrees, while in other places criminology has not yet highly developed.
My 2009 paper also reviewed the successful growth experience of European and North American criminology and pointed out the important role played by a Western Criminological Paradigm in the rapid growth of criminology. It concluded that the Western 'development towards relatively unified concepts, approaches, and institutionalization of criminology has led to a common paradigm [emphasis added] for dialogue, debate, and discussion, as well as generally shared standards for evaluation of research and programs and a relatively clearer direction for advancement' (Liu 2009: 3). In other words, '[s]hared conceptual frameworks, research approaches, and institutionalization under a unified paradigm greatly promote the rapid growth of a science' (Liu 2009: 7). I suggested that the strategy for criminology in Asia should consider these historical experiences on the important role of criminological paradigms, and take advantage of the opportunity offered by diversity in Asia. (Liu 2009: 7) In the West, the institutionalization of criminology has developed alongside conceptual and theoretical development, including the establishment of the American Society of Criminology and Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in the US, the European Society of Criminology, and other academic networks, education programs and academic journals published in English. These platforms and institutions facilitate communication within the community and with other parts of the world.
In contrast, there has been a lack of an Asian Criminology Paradigm, and a lack of platforms and institutions for exchanging and sharing ideas among Asian criminologists and with criminologists worldwide. There was no Asia-wide criminology society, few criminology-related journals, and no Asia-wide annual conferences to bring criminologists in the region together. The paper (Liu 2009) pointed out a primary strategy for advancement was to develop an Asian Criminological Paradigm and to establish platforms of exchange and institutions for Asian Criminologists. I stressed that '[t]he paradigm of Asian criminology should consider the diversity of Asia, particularly encouraging the in-depth study of particular Asian contexts, traditions, and theoretical or practice models, as well as topics that are particularly Asian' (Liu 2009: 8).  (2016). The registered number of participants has been as high as 575 people for the conference in Osaka, Japan. The ACS annual conferences have become an event of great importance in criminology in Asia, and we are looking forward to the 2017 conference in Cairns, Australia (co-hosted by the Crime and Justice Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology), and the 2018 conference in Malaysia.
Past President of the American Society of Criminology, Joanne Belknap, analyzed the recent rapid growth of Asian criminology. She collected data from Web of Science by using the academic search engine, the ISI Web of Science, to identify criminology articles across Asian countries and time. She has found that, of the Asian countries analyzed, 50 per cent or more of the criminology articles about their countries had been published in 2010 or later (see Table 1 in Belknap 2015). Even the country with the longest history of criminology and criminal justice articles had well over one quarter of relevant articles published since 2010. The findings indicate that, for those Asian countries included in her Table 1, on average, 46.3per cent of the criminology and criminal justice articles were published in 2010 or later. She concluded that the ISI Web of Science data have documented the rapid expansion of Asian criminology from 2010.
The Asian Journal of Criminology, the official journal of the Asian Criminological Society, has played an important role in contributing to the development of Asian criminology. It is a key platform for scholars worldwide to exchange ideas and publish their research on Asian criminology. Belknap (2015) used examples of specific articles to exemplify how Asian criminology is advancing the field of criminology world-wide through theoretical, methodological and framing designs, and crime control practices. The society also organized the editing of the Handbook of Asian Criminology (Liu, Hebenton and Jou 2013) to lay a foundation for the systematic growth of the crime and justice knowledge base in Asia.
Prominent scholars have recognized the importance and the growing contributions of Asian criminology (Agnew 2014;Belknap 2015;Braithwaite 2014;Carrington, Hogg and Sozzo 2016;Messner 2014Messner , 2015Sampson 2015;Walklate 2015). Within the development of the Asian Criminological Paradigm, the most significant recent growth has been in conceptual and theoretical contributions, which I review below. These developments reflect a three-stage process that represents three strategies that link global North and South. Through augmenting Western theories, contributions from Asian contexts have thus significantly extended the original Western/Northern Criminological toolbox.

Development of a conceptual and theoretical toolbox under the Asian Criminological Paradigm
Three types of theoretical projects have been conducted. These represent three different strategies and also three different stages of development toward Asian theories. The first strategy or stage is transportation; the second is elaboration; and the third, as promoted by John Braithwaite (2015), is to propose Asian concept and theories. Each of these strategies is outlined below and then discussed more fully in the sections that follow.
The first strategy is to extend the established Western criminology paradigms to Asian contexts. This entails transporting theories established in the West and applying them to Asian contexts; evaluating their feasibility; and generalizing them to a broader scope, if applicable. The second is to transform the theory or theories to a new form under Asian contexts. This involves creating and incorporating new concepts that are more faithful to the social realities of non-Western societies such as Asia. The third approach is to establish distinctively different theories based on comparative and Asian realities, which answer distinctively important questions that are naturally asked and answered through Asian criminology. It analyzes the special features of Asian contexts and conceptual processes to establish new concepts and theories.
IJCJ&SD 78 Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2017 6(1) The third strategy differs in many ways from the dominant Western conceptual and methodology tool box. It establishes an Asian discourse, which is based on the empirical reality of Asian contexts. The eventual objective is to contribute to world criminology theories by way of comparative studies to achieve more general theories through integrating Western and non-Western criminologies. These three strategies reflect a three-stage process for the development of concepts and theories that moves from more Western to more Asian, linking the global North with the South.

The first stage: Transportation, evaluative testing
Testing is a major enterprise in establishing a theory. A valid theory must stand repeated testing to establish applicability and generalizability. As previously discussed, a growing amount of research has tested well-established Western criminological theories and elaborated them under Asian contexts. This body of research has made important findings. In many cases, research confirmed the applicability of a theory; in others, the theories have been found to be not applicable within Asian contexts. I summarize some of the work around theories that have been tested in the following section. I acknowledge that these examples and cited studies are by no means a complete list of contributions; further review is necessary to find and categorize other relevant studies.

Differential association/social learning theory
The theory predicts that associations with criminal or delinquent others increases the likelihood of deviant behavior. A substantial body of research in the West has offered support for this prediction (Lilly et al. 2011: 57; see also Pratt et al. 2010). The theory has found support from many studies using various data from China (see, for example, Bao et al. 2014;Cheung 1997;Cheung and Cheung 2008;Davis, Tang and Ko 2004;Ngai and Cheung 2005;Ma et al. 2002;Wong 2001). Agnew's (1992Agnew's ( , 2006 general strain theory (GST) focuses on negative life experiences that increase strain or stress and, in so doing, serve as the impetus for crime and delinquency in the absence of effective coping mechanisms. A wide array of strains have been theorized as being criminogenic, and categorized into three general types: the inability to realize positively-valued goals; the removal of positively-valued stimuli; and the presentation of aversive stimuli (Agnew 2006: 101). Despite not all claims of GST being confirmed in the empirical literature, much evidence shows that exposure to strain increases the likelihood of criminal offending (Lilly et al. 2011: 77). The theory has found support from many Asian studies (see, for example, Bao et al. 2014;Bao, Haas and Pi 2007;Cheung and Cheung 2010;Cheung, Ngai and Ngai 2007;Liu RX 2011); no support from others (Ngai and Cheung 2005); and partial support from some studies (Wong 2001).

General strain theory
These interesting findings can be exemplified in the study by Lin (2012: 50), which applied general strain theory (GST) to Taiwanese youth using a longitudinal panel design. His finding suggested that 'whereas depression may play a central role in the GST in the East, anger may be the focal emotion in the West'. Lin pointed out that systems in the East that are considered 'developed' (such as in Taiwan) 'still conserves some deep-rooted cultural heritages, such as the Confucian ethos and a collectivist view of the world (2012: 49-50)'. His finding suggests the need to consider the influence of the cultural tradition even in the most developed Asian areas when applying Western criminology theories and empirical work to Asian contexts.

Self-control theory
The theory postulates that all crime, at all times, in all places, can be explained with reference to a single, overarching propensity: low self-control (Gottfredson 2006: 83). The lack of self-control IJCJ&SD 79 Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2017 6(1) is manifested as a tendency to be impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risktaking, short-sighted and nonverbal (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990: 90).
Individuals possessing low self-control are predicted to be predisposed to commit crimes, contingent on available opportunities to do so. Much research has reported that low self-control is an important predictor of crime and delinquency. Measures of low self-control are consistently related to increased risks of criminal offending (for comprehensive reviews of the literature assessing self-control theory, see Engel 2012; Pratt and Cullen 2000;Schulz 2006). Some studies found support in the Asian context (Cheung 2014;Chui and Chan 2013;Cretacci, Rivera and King 2009); and others found no support (Cheung and Cheung 2008;Wang et al 2002). Other research reported more complex results. For example, Jo and Zhang (2012) tested the theory in the South Korean youth population and found that, consistent with US-based studies, relative stability in self-control trajectories for attitudinal measures has complex effects (Jo and Zhang 2012: 188).

Social control theory
Jiang and colleagues' (2013: 220) study of social control theory in China found that, consistent with Western studies, collective efficacy 'was related to perceived neighborhood property crime'. However, semi-formal controls were inversely related to property crimes indicating that 'social organization theory needs to be modified when it is applied to China' (Jiang, Land and Wang 2013: 220).

Social capital theories
One interesting example is Liu's (2005) testing of the effect of social capital in the context of China. The results found evidence supportive of Western research. Another example testing social capital theory is Takagi and Kawachi's (2014) study in Japan. The result is consistent with Western studies regarding the influence of strong friendships and social ties on crime control, but inconsistent with Western studies in that Takagi and Kawachi did not find that neighborhoodlevel social ties impacted crime or the fear of crime.
In sum, the strategy of transportation of Western theories to Asian contexts has found supportive evidence in some studies, and little support or no support in other studies. Researchers have made interesting ad hoc explanations for these findings in reference to Asian contexts. This research has made important contributions to criminological theories.

Second stage: Transforming Western theories under Asian contexts
Despite many studies providing supportive findings to influential theories for their applicability in non-Western contexts, there are serious questions about the feasibility of simply transporting perspectives established in the West to Asian contexts.
Elaboration of a theory is identification of the scope within which a theory is applicable, which reflects the importance of context. Scope points to the influence of context and the need to elaborate the theory under different contextual conditions. However, transformation of a theory is not just specifying the scope, but is a fundamental reworking of the theory under new contexts. I review a few examples which take the strategy of transformation, and creatively consider the features of the context of Asian societies and human cognitive processes, rather than simply transporting and applying to Asian contexts. The transformation process is much more involved than the transportation stage. The space limitations for this review do not allow for a detailed explanation of these reworkings of influential Western theories. Thus I briefly summarize them below and refer interested readers to the original work of the authors. Cohen and Felson (1979) proposed that the fundamental postulate of routine activities theory is that the completion of predatory criminal victimization requires the convergence in space and IJCJ&SD 80 Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2017 6(1) time of three components: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians who could intervene to thwart the crime.

Reworking routine activity theory (by Messner 2014)
Interestingly, several major studies found that the theory only performs well when applied to developed countries, not for developing countries (Anderson and Bennett 1996;Bennett 1991;Stein 2010). Messner et al. (2007) found that, in China, being single was not associated with any indicator of victimization risk (Messner et al. 2007: 515). This finding is contrary to the widely reported finding of relatively high victimization levels for single persons in Western societies (Lauritsen 2001;van Kesteren, John and Nieuwbeerta 2001;van Wilsem, de Graaf and Karin 2002). Messner suggests a theoretical elaboration better expressed in the language of hierarchical causal modeling: the argument implies a cross-level interaction. The impact of marital status (being single) on victimization risk is stipulated to be contingent on the degree of familism (the level of importance of family in the contexts).

Reworking of self-control theory (general theory of crime) (by Messner 2015)
As previously outlined in this article, general control theory maintains that '… people who lack self-control will tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted, and nonverbal, and they will tend therefore to engage in criminal and analogous acts' (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990: 90). The extent to which a person develops self-control depends primarily, according to the theory, on the effectiveness of child-rearing.
Messner (2015) proposes that a cultural orientation towards collectivism and the accompanying institutional patterns grounded in webs of interpersonal relationships become relevant to selfcontrol. Kitayama and Uchida (2005: 141) made an argument that, while the 'self' is an intrinsic feature of human psychology, the way that the self is constructed varies depending on how personal 'agency' is exercised. Moreover, two distinct forms of agency can be differentiated, which Kitayama and Uchida (2005) refer to as 'independent agency' and 'interdependent agency'. Each form of agency entails the activation of distinctive sets of meanings. When independent agency is exercised, 'the self is defined primarily in terms of attributes that are internal to it such as his or her own goals, desires, needs, personality traits, and abilities …'. The exercise of interdependent agency, in contrast, involves a different process. 'Goals, desires, and needs of others in a relationship are just as important as one's own' (Kitayama and Uchida 2005: 139). The style of independent agency tends to be 'dominant' and 'widespread' in European-American cultures, whereas the style of interdependent agency is 'quite dominant in East Asian cultures' (Kitayama and Uchida 2005: 157). These arguments suggested a direction for a further a reconceptualization of the very concept of 'self-control' to yield a transformed theory that could prove to be more universally applicable than is the current general theory of crime.

Situational Action Theory (SAT) and its transformation (by Messner 2014)
Situational action theory propose that crime causation ultimately entails a 'perception-choice process' that is grounded in situational dynamics. Actors perceive different alternatives for action and make choices among them, given the personal characteristics and features of the environments in which actors find themselves. The personal characteristics that are most relevant to crime causation are subsumed under the concept of 'criminal propensity'. Criminal propensity is influenced by the person's set of moral beliefs (the 'moral filter') and his or her ability to exercise self-control. The salient feature of the environment in the explanation of crime is exposure to criminogenic settings. A setting is defined as '… the part of the environment … that, at any given moment in time, is accessible to a person through his or her senses' (Wikström et al. 2012: 15). A setting is criminogenic to the extent that its features encourage or fail to discourage law violation. So the theory argues that crime occurs when someone considers a criminal act as a possible behavioral option and chooses to exercise this option given an assessment of the incentives and disincentives at the point of time and place. IJCJ&SD 81 Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2017 6(1) Messner (2014) point out that the SAT theory has a shortcoming in not considering the role of the larger cultural and institutional context. The theory actually adopts a 'universalistic' position with respect to human psychology. Messner stresses that the accumulated body of evidence has documented pronounced cross-cultural variation in social orientations and cognitive styles, implying that the 'bracketing' of features of the sociocultural context as mere 'inputs' into the mechanism of crime causation is likely to be inadequate when applying SAT theory to explain crime in East Asia. Rather, Messner suggest that literature from cultural psychology implies that SAT may need to be transformed in significant ways to accommodate the reality that the nature of psychological processes, including the perception-choice process, is culture-bound.

Institutional Anomie Theory (IAT) and its transformation (by Messner 2015)
The IAT theory assumes that some degree of integration among the major social institutions is required for society to function, but that the accomplishment of such integration is typically problematic because the requirements for the effective functioning of any given institution may conflict with the requirements of another institution. Performing a given institutional role may preclude performing another role. In addition, the types of orientations towards social interactions that are appropriate often differ, depending on the institutional domain. Any given society will therefore be characterized by a distinctive arrangement of social institutions that reflects a balancing of the sometimes competing claims and requisites of these institutions, yielding a corresponding 'institutional balance of power'. The central idea of IAT theory is that the type of institutional configuration that is conducive to high levels of crime in contemporary societies is one in which the roles and the associated logics of the economy are awarded the highest priority; the most typical example of this institutional configuration is that of the US. Further, economic dominance in the institutional order, in turn, is theorized to be grounded in an extreme form of individualism that is inherently disintegrative. Moreover, economic dominance in the institutional order is conducive to anomie. Under conditions of pervasive anomie, the moral authority of social norms begins to erode, and action tends to be guided primarily by considerations of pure technical expediency. The principal components of macro-social organization are included in the theory: a society's dominant cultural values, its institutional arrangements, and its institutional norms.

Messner asked an important question about IAT:
To what extent can a theoretical perspective on crime that has been formulated with reference to the inherent tension between social solidarity and individualistic cultural values be applied to societies that are characterized by collectivistic cultural values? He points out that, in the current formulation of IAT, the macro-dynamics of crime are explained with reference to the core features of social organization: pervasive cultural values; the balance among social institutions; and the vitality of the normative order. The content is nevertheless quite different in the Asian context, highlighting opportunistic collectivism, political dominance, and neutralized moral norms. He proposed a transformation of IAT under the Asian context.

The third stage: New concepts and a new theory from Asia
In his keynote speech at the sixth annual conference of the Asian Criminological Society, Braithwaite (2015) stressed: Asia and the Pacific embrace the regions of greatest cultural and linguistic diversity in the world. Asia's most important contribution to global criminology is therefore in opening its eyes to completely new ways of seeing, as opposed to adjusting, testing, or revising Western theories in light of Eastern experience. … [It is the right time in the] development of criminology in Asia to move away from an international division of scholarly labor whereby influential theories are developed in the West, while Asia's role is to apply or test those theories in Asian IJCJ&SD 82 Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2017 6(1) contexts or adapt them to Asian realities. It is time for a new era of criminological theory that was given birth in Asia by Asian scholars.
Braithwaite proposed five restorative hypotheses based on his observations of Asian restorative justice. In the same address, he declared that '[t]he hope is that they may be useful for constructing the kind of relational theory of crime control advocated by Liu (2014)

Conceptual innovations in restorative justice
Restorative justice is a worldwide movement that has become an ever important practice in the justice systems of many countries with well-established Western restoration models. Zehr (1990), a key figure in this movement, called for a lens change, setting restorative justice as a different paradigm to retributive justice. For Asian countries, restorative justice is typically considered as 'Western import'. This is despite many common practices in Asian countries sharing the spirit and principles of restorative justice, such as conflict resolution and reconciliation processes between victims and offender as well as their families and community (Liu 2007(Liu , 2015Liu and Palermo 2009). Braithwaite's theory of crime and re-integrative shaming (1989) provided a strong theoretical foundation for the restorative justice movement and practices.
In his recent work, Braithwaite (2015) proposed important innovative conceptual contributions to the concept of, and approach to, restorative justice based on Asian contexts. These innovations drastically broaden the concept and approaches of restorative justice in Western modalities. Braithwaite advanced seven original conclusions about restorative justice models and provided good examples of how Asian philosophy and practice can enrich Western criminal justice in ways that enhance crime control and respect for rights in the West.
A theory of relational justice (Liu 2013(Liu , 2014(Liu , 2016 The theory of relational justice is an attempt to provide a systematic explanation about the large differences between the Western and the Asian concepts of crime and justice. The theory states that there is significant variation along an index measuring the concept of 'collectivism/relationism', reflecting cultural differences produced by differences in social organization and cultural traditions. The variation in 'relationism' produces variation in dominant cultural values relevant to the concept of crime and justice. At one end of the relationism index, Asians tend to stress three important cultural values: attachment, honor and harmony. At the other end, modern Western society tends to stress independence, materialistic success and individual rights. Besides these value differences, the differences in the mode of thinking style have been empirically demonstrated by research in cultural psychology. Asian subjects tend to employ a 'holistic thinking mode', while Western counterparts tends to employ an 'analytical thinking mode'. I hypothesize that the differences in cultural values and thinking modes produce differences in concepts of crime and justice. Asians tends to conceive the concept of crime and justice as relational concepts and Westerners tends to conceive the concept of crime and justice as individualistic concepts. My theory elaborates how these conceptual differences produce important differences in the criminal justice systems and behavior (Liu 2014(Liu , 2016. I am currently continuing to develop this theory and am designing measurement instruments to test it.

Future directions
Southern criminologists have pointed out an important problem in the development of criminology: a global divide between North and South. This hierarchical stratification in knowledge production has resulted in serious underdevelopment of non-Western criminology. This drawback is also reflected to the unbalanced development of comparative criminology, in that non-Western comparisons are scant. Thus, bridging the gap between North and South is an acute task for global criminology and also a great opportunity for researchers to make significant contributions in criminology.
Along this direction, this paper has reviewed the expansion of Asian criminology and suggested the importance of the development of an Asian Criminology Paradigm in its recent rapid growth. It has also reviewed the core of the paradigm -conceptual and theoretical development -and described the three strategies adopted by scholars in contributing to the conceptual tool box that links Northern theories to Southern realities and ideas. The three strategies suggest a three-stage development from relatively simple to more complex theoretical work, leading to the last and most innovative task of proposing conceptual advances and Asian theories, as enthusiastically endorsed by Braithwaite (2015): 'It is time for a new era of criminological theory that was given birth in Asia by Asian scholars'. Braithwaite was pointing toward a new direction for criminology, especially Asian criminology, and also a future direction for linking the global North and South.
The history of development points to the importance of furthering an Asian Criminological Paradigm. Despite the current paper's focus on the review and summary of conceptual and theoretical development, I stress that this is only one dimension of the Asian Criminological Paradigm. To continue moving forward, I emphasize the importance of, firstly, developing research questions that are salient in Asia and, secondly, acquiring research strategies and methodology that respond best to the special features of Asian contexts and conceptual processes. These will be critical in forming concepts and theories that reflect and guide studies of crime and crime control involving Asia.
Research questions that are highly relevant in Asia might include, for example, corruption, which, in China, may be greater concern as a category of crime than violent crimes. Moreover, environmental pollution is a greater concern in China and India than in Europe and North America. Asia is in a different stage of development from the West and is under different historical, cultural and international contexts, and thus has different problems. Industrialization and urbanization, for example, have led to internal migration rather than international migration as a major process. New crimes and conventional crimes are different.
Secondly, research strategies and methodology that respond best to the special features of Asian contexts and conceptual processes will need to reflect and guide methods of crime and crime control involving Asia. The currently dominant methods may not be easily applied due to the nature of the problems to be solved, and the nature of the available data. For example, survey and interview questions and responses may not be interpreted the same way in Western and Asian contexts. There are many issues regarding research strategies, and new methods need to be researched.
In summary, the task of bridging theoretical and practical gaps between the global North and South in the discipline of criminology presents both challenges and opportunities. Further developing a criminological paradigm that fits the Asian contexts will help meet this challenge and grow the discipline.