The impact of the 2008 economic crisis on imprisonment in Europe
| Author | José M. López-Riba,Jorge Rodríguez-Menés |
| Published date | 01 November 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370819830586 |
| Date | 01 November 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819830586
European Journal of Criminology
2020, Vol. 17(6) 845 –876
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370819830586
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
The impact of the 2008
economic crisis on
imprisonment in Europe
Jorge Rodríguez-Menés
and José M. López-Riba
Pompeu Fabra University, Spain
Abstract
We explore how the worldwide economic downturn of the early 2000s affected imprisonment
rates across Europe. We test three hypotheses: (i) the recession caused an increase in
incarceration rates directly, regulating the excess in labour supply; (ii) it did it indirectly, by
affecting crime; (iii) its effects varied according to the institutional context – countries’ welfare
states and criminal justice traditions. We use cross-national panel data to fit fixed, random and
mixed-effects models and to explain variations in incarceration rates within and across countries
during 12 years. The results show that the economic crisis had multiple effects on imprisonment
and that these were moderated by the institutional context, increasing it in countries with less
comprehensive welfare states and more punitive penal traditions and decreasing it in countries
with penal-welfarist policies.
Keywords
Economic crisis, imprisonment, penal policies, social policies
Introduction
The impact of socioeconomic conditions and, specifically, of economic crises on impris-
onment rates has been the subject of much research – see the next section for a review.
Until recently, the consensus was that incarcerations rose with deteriorating economic
conditions owing to higher unemployment and poverty (Chiricos and DeLone, 1992;
Pratt and Cullen, 2005). However, some studies now suggest that, during the recent
worldwide recession, incarceration rates dropped (D’Amico and Williamson, 2015;
Uggen, 2012), or that there were important cross-national variations (Dünkel, 2017;
Wenzelburger, 2018).
Corresponding author:
José M. López-Riba, Pompeu Fabra University, Department of Law, Roger de Llúria Building, Ramon Trias
Fargas, 25–27, Barcelona, 08005, Spain.
Email: josemaria.lopez@upf.edu
830586EUC0010.1177/1477370819830586European Journal of CriminologyRodriguez-Menés and López-Riba
research-article2019
Article
846 European Journal of Criminology 17(6)
Among the researchers finding a relationship between economic crises and incarcera-
tion, many follow Rusche and Kirchheimer’s thesis (1939) that during recessions repres-
sion and harsher penalties replace routine channels for maintaining social order (Jacobs
and Carmichael, 2001). Others argue that the relationship is indirect, via changes in
crime (Rosenfeld, 2014; Rosenfeld and Messner, 2013). And still others make the rela-
tionship conditional on the institutional context in which it operates (Lacey 2010; Lappi-
Seppälä, 2011; Sutton, 2004; Wenzelburger, 2018).
In this article we investigate the impact of the 2008 economic crisis on imprisonment
rates across Europe, using cross-national panel data over a 12-year period. We test
whether the recession produced direct or indirect changes in incarceration rates and if
they depended on the institutional context.
The article is structured as follows. In the next section, we review the theoretical
approaches to studying economic conditions and incarceration, distinguishing studies
that explore a direct or indirect link between the two from those that consider the impact
of the institutional context. This discussion helps us develop the research objectives and
hypotheses. Next, we present the data, variables and methodology. The presentation of
the results follows. The final section discusses the research implications.
Economic crisis and imprisonment
As noted, the scientific literature on the impact of economic downturns on imprisonment
posits either an indirect effect via variations in crime rates, a direct effect via harsher
punishments, or differential effects depending on the institutional context. We next
briefly review the three approaches.
Indirect effects
In general, criminologists have posited a negative (countercyclical) association between
economic conditions and crime (Bushway et al., 2012; Pratt and Cullen, 2005; Pratt and
Lowenkamp, 2002) and a positive one between crime and incarcerations, at least for
some crimes (Aebi, Linde and Delgrande, 2015; Uggen, 2012). Hence, they expect
declines and increases in crimes and incarcerations during, respectively, expansionary
and recessionary periods.
The main explanation for the criminogenic relationship between economic downturns
and crime is economic, linking the rise in (property) crimes and incarcerations to the
increasing costs of engaging in legitimate activities (Vold et al., 1998). Another could be
provided by Agnew’s (1992) strain theory: economic crises cause increases in inequality,
poverty and unemployment, which produce a state of tension and more (violent) crime.
The alternative hypothesis expects a positive relationship. Criminality ‘increases and
decreases in the same manner as other economic activity’ (Vold et al., 1998: 115), and the
returns from crime are curtailed during recessions (Rosenfeld 2009). Furthermore, con-
tractions reduce the opportunities to commit crimes – in line with Cohen and Felson’s
(1979) routine activities theory.
The research supporting each hypothesis is inconclusive (Michalowski and Carlson,
1999; Vold et al., 1998; Zimring, 2007), partly because it stems from different
Rodriguez-Menés and López-Riba 847
methodological designs – cross-sectional or longitudinal – and measurements (see
Chiricos, 1987, and Pratt and Lowenkamp, 2002, for discussions). As noted by
Rosenfeld (2009), the debate somewhat faded after Cantor and Land (1985) introduced
longitudinal data and new indicators to measure economic cycles (for example, changes
in salaries and GDP per capita). However, it did not vanish, for several reasons.
First, associations between changing economic conditions and incarceration rates
continued to be observed for some crimes. Most studies found thefts to be counter-
cyclical, increasing with recessions and decreasing with expansions, and violent
crimes to be pro-cyclical (Arvanites and Defina, 2006; Bushway et al., 2012; Cantor
and Land, 1985; Jacobs and Richardson, 2008). However, some authors found vio-
lent crimes to be countercyclical (Fajnzylber et al., 2002; Rosenfeld, 2009).
Second, there remain significant methodological differences among the studies
using longitudinal data. Some apply times-series analyses for single geographical
units (Cantor and Land, 1985; Pratt and Lowenkamp, 2002; Rosenfeld, 2009); oth-
ers, semi-experimental designs contrasting periods of varying duration (Bushway
et al., 2012); and still others use fixed- or random-effects models comparing differ-
ent geographical units (Fajnzylber et al., 2002; Jacobs and Carmichael, 2001). Some
authors log the variables (Arvanites and Defina, 2006; Jacobs and Richardson, 2008;
Rosenfeld, 2009); others, transform them into relative measures based on first or
second differences (for example, Cantor and Land, 1985; Rosenfeld, 2014); and still
others use moving averages or lagged variables with different time specifications
(for example, Jacobs and Richardson, 2008; Pratt and Lowenkamp, 2002).
The debate on the relationship between crime and incarceration rates is also con-
troversial (Rosenfeld, 2014). In the 1990s, the consensus was that the rise in US
incarceration rates was due to rises in drug crimes (see Blumstein and Beck, 1999, but
also Arvanites and Defina, 2006, and Beckett and Western, 2001, for opposite conclu-
sions). However, in the 2000s this view was abandoned as incarceration rates contin-
ued to rise despite a sustained drop in crime (Raphael and Stoll, 2007). In Europe, the
increases in prison rates during the 1990s and 2000s were often explained as being
driven by more violent crimes (Aebi, Linde and Delgrande, 2015; D’Amico and
Williamson, 2015), although not in all countries (Dünkel, 2017; Lappi-Seppälä,
2011). An overall conclusion could be that there is a positive, if weak, relationship
between (violent) crime and incarceration. Greenberg (2001) argued that dismissing
this association would be against common sense and might simply reflect researchers’
methodological choices.
The difficulty in estimating the relationship between crime and punishment stems
from its complexity. Variations in imprisonment rates respond both to the ‘breadth’ and
to the ‘intensity’ of prison use (Young and Brown, 1993: 14). The former reflects how
many people are admitted to prison; the latter, the mean length of stay (Lappi-Seppälä,
2011). Each reacts differently to alternative crimes, criminal policies (Tonry, 2007;
Von Hofer, 2003) and governments’ financial capacities (Lappi-Seppälä, 2008).
Finally, estimates of the effect of crime on imprisonment must consider the opposite
effect of imprisonment on crime (Zimring, 2007), to avoid its underestimation (Liedka
et al., 2006).
To continue reading
Request your trial