A respectable amount of studies focusing on neighborhood effects on crime and disorder has consistently found and consolidated collective efficacy as a central mediator explaining variations across neighborhoods. It is a theoretical notion based upon two mechanisms (social cohesion and shared expectations for control) where it is hypothesized that the residents' willingness to intervene for the common good of the neighborhood, relies on the level of shared values amongst neighbors. Informal social control is thus theorized to be endorsed in neighborhoods characterized by social cohesion .Together these two theoretical building blocks form collective efficacy which is furthermore argued to be impeded or hindered in neighborhoods characterized by for instance concentrated disadvantage, higher immigrant concentration, and residential instability. At the individual level instead, levels of collective efficacy is correlated with levels of SES, homeownership, age, and mobility. However, findings suggest that these characteristics vary across cultural contexts. This study sets out to test the two mechanisms social cohesion and informal social control separately with the aim of investigating if they originate or are derived from the same social and structural characteristics. Using data from the fear of crime survey conducted in Malmö (Sweden) in 2012 (n=4195), 104 urban neighborhoods form the basis for separate models each controlling for neighborhood as well as individual characteristics. The results will be discussed against the theoretical backdrop of collective efficacy and if the effects it has on fear of crime and victimization necessarily stems from an integrative notion of the two mechanisms/concepts. Practical policy implications will furthermore be discussed as will matters for further research.