Policy mobilities and comparative penality
| Author | Tim Newburn,Trevor Jones,Jarrett Blaustein |
| DOI | 10.1177/1362480617713985 |
| Published date | 01 November 2018 |
| Date | 01 November 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480617713985
Theoretical Criminology
2018, Vol. 22(4) 563 –581
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362480617713985
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
Policy mobilities and
comparative penality
Tim Newburn
London School of Economics, UK
Trevor Jones
Cardiff University, UK
Jarrett Blaustein
Monash University, Australia
Abstract
The study of ‘policy transfer’ has been subject to sustained criticism, in particular by
critical policy studies scholars. This critique—together with the rather marginal role that
policy transfer research has played in criminological debates to date—raises questions
about the continued utility of such research in scholarly discussions of crime control
and penal policy-making. However, we argue here that such studies can enhance our
understanding of the local, national and global influences over crime control policy
formation. In particular, the developing interest in comparative criminology, in the
political economy of punishment, and in the ‘proximate causes’ of penal change, are all
areas to which this work can make a useful contribution. Although we feel that some
elements of the critique are over-stated, the critical policy studies notions of ‘mobilities’
and ‘assemblages’ offer important advances that capture more fully the complexities of
the processes involved in the cross-national movement of penal policy.
Keywords
Comparative penal policy, penality, policy mobilities, policy transfer, political economy,
punishment
Corresponding author:
Tim Newburn, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London,
WC2A 2AE, UK.
Email: t.newburn@lse.ac.uk
713985TCR0010.1177/1362480617713985Theoretical CriminologyNewburn et al.
research-article2017
Article
564 Theoretical Criminology 22(4)
Introduction
The ‘punitive turn’ (inter alia, Downes, 2011; Jacobson, 2006) has drawn the attention of
scholars around the world to issues of comparative penal policy. Within this body of
activity there has been a significant debate around issues of policy ‘convergence’—the
extent to which (and reasons for which) penal policy across a range of industrial democ-
racies became increasingly similar, and in particular more punitive, over the latter dec-
ades of the 20th century (Crawford, 2011). In parallel, and linked to this, increasing
attention has also been paid to the diversity of policy trajectories in different national
contexts, and has sought to identify those factors that might explain why some countries
appear to be more resistant to punitive shifts. Such work has drawn on a range of disci-
plinary perspectives. Distinguished theoretical sociologists have provided sophisticated
accounts of the ways in which deep structural, cultural and economic shifts in late mod-
ern societies have predisposed nation states towards more punitive policy stances, lead-
ing to a degree of cross-national policy convergence (Garland, 2001). Scholars working
closer to the tradition of political economy have explored the associations between the
nature of penal policy and such factors as political institutions, types of electoral and
party systems, forms of economic organization and the structure of the mass media
(Cavadino and Dignan, 2005; Lacey, 2011). Others have drawn on anthropological and
historical perspectives to map out and explain the dimensions of particular contemporary
penal cultures (Melossi, 2001; Whitman, 2003).
This article takes a slightly different path, but seeks to contribute to this body of work
by highlighting the potential contribution of scholarship that focuses on the ways in
which policy ideas, institutions and practices flow across national boundaries. We feel
that these approaches, currently rather marginal to criminological debates, have much to
offer studies of penal policy change. In particular, they have the potential to provide
more nuanced explanations of the ways in which extra-jurisdictional developments can
shape the domestic ‘proximate causes’ of penal policy trajectories (Garland, 2013). Such
approaches problematize the notion of ‘policy’, draw attention to its dynamic and emer-
gent nature and, crucially, provide the impetus for detailed and systematic empirical
study of policy formation processes over time and space. Such work, we would suggest,
is of relevance to key scholarly debates and current theories of punishment and control.
In addition, it is clear that—whether explicitly acknowledged or not—much work on
penal change is underpinned by a broadly shared normative position, and hence a norma-
tive project, the aim of which is to find ways of changing the direction of policy towards
greater penal moderation (Loader, 2010). If academic criminology is to become more
than a ‘counsel of despair’ (see Zedner, 2002: 361), systematic empirical study of the
policy formation process—including the ways in which cross-national influences work
to shape crime policy—is a pre-requisite for identifying opportunities to bring about
progressive change.
The article has four main sections. First, we provide a brief overview of the key
themes in the literature on comparative penal policy change which forms the context for
the article. Second, we discuss how ‘orthodox’ policy transfer scholarship has been
applied to the fields of criminal justice and penal policy. The third section discusses
emergent critiques of orthodox policy transfer studies by scholars interested in notions of
To continue reading
Request your trial