Introduction Studies exploring the macro predictors of crime and victimization have been ongoing for quite a long time and experts in sociology, economics, criminology and other related fields have conducted many studies trying to identify the aggregate macro predictors and how they cause crime. Several theories have as a result emerged in this field all trying to explain the macro predictors of crime. However among the many studies and reviews which have been conducted, there is no single review which seems to explain fully the macro predictors due to existence of various limitations. The first limitation is that of the scope where no single study can be able to cover concisely defining and describing the macro predictors with finality. This has been attributed due to the different motivations which lead to the occurrence of the crimes, the time as well as the locations. Macro-predictors theories Among the many studies which have been conducted, several macro predictor theories have emerged and experts have grouped them depending on their views and variables. These theories include: the social disorganization theory, the absolute deprivation or the conflict theory, the anomie or traditional theory, the routine activities theory as well as the deterrence theory among others. Due to the inability of covering all criminological theories in one study, this study in particular will concentrate more on two interests which are the social disorganization theory and the relative deprivation or routine (lifestyle) activities theory. Theory of Social Disorganization The theory of social disorganization coined by two researchers Shaw and McKay in the year 1972 while conducting a study on jail sentences for the juveniles came up with a neighborhood level theory by the name of social disorganization theory. The study maintained that rather than the individual who was the criminal being the problem, the social settings in which one lived in was to blame for the occurrence of crimes in a certain area. The two noted that the many reported crimes cases of juveniles were attributed by the location or the neighborhood these individuals lived. Their study on the Chicago juvenile cases led to them concluding that crime was not that widely spread in a location, rather there were some central points which appeared as the hotspots for crimes. For example people living around the slums in the city. They found out that when people living in these areas moved or migrated to other places, their probability of committing crimes (Muftic 50) As a result, this forced the two to conclude that crimes were related to the neighborhood dynamics and not necessarily the individual himself. It was after this that the studies to investigate what characteristics of the slum made the cases of crimes more prevalent than on the other places. The two concentrated on the urban areas which were on a transition for example both in economic aspects and social aspects. Concentrating more on places where the socio economic aspects were poor, they noted that the social guardians such as the schools, hospitals and other social institutions which were supposed to check on the behaviors of the individuals living in these areas were not that strong and thus they had been unable