How can Insights from Historical and Constructivist Institutionalism aid Criminological Enquiry? Stephen Farrall (CCR, Sheffield Univ). 15th June 2017, Birkbeck College.

An Outline My needs to draw upon institutional thinking from within political science. Outlining the sections of institutionalist thinking I have drawn upon. Applying these in practice. Future research plans and the role of institutional thinking in these.

Politics and Crime Over the past 10yrs or so I have been exploring the role of political decision making in crime and the CJS. Focus on ‘Thatcherism’ and it’s long term consequences for the CJS and citizens’ experiences of crime. Has required me to engage with how institutions evolve and are shaped by ideas.

Drawing on Historical Institutionalism (HI) Concerned with illuminating how institutions and institutional settings mediate the ways in which processes unfold over time. Institutions do not simply ‘channel’ policies; they help to define policy concerns, create the ‘objects’ of policy and shape the nature of the interests in policies which actors may have. Attempts to understand how political and policy processes and relationships play out over time coupled with an appreciation that prior events, procedures and processes will have consequences for subsequent events. There are both fast- and slow-moving causal processes and outcomes.

What is HI? Institutionalists are interested in how institutions are constructed, maintained and adapted over time. Institutions do not simply channel policies; they help to define policy concerns, create the objects of any policy and shape the nature of the interests in policies which actors may have. Politics does not simply create policies; policies also create politics. HI is an attempt to develop understanding of how political and policy processes and relationships play out over time coupled with an appreciation that prior events, procedures and processes will have consequences for subsequent events.

Key concepts Institutions: “… the formal rules, compliance procedures, and standard operating practices that structure the relationship between individuals in various units of the policy and economy” (Hall, 1986: 19). HI is concerned with illuminating how institutions and institutional settings mediate the ways in which processes unfold over time (Thelen and Steinmo, 1992). Neither a particular theory nor a method. Focused on empirical questions and the ways in which institutions structure and shape political behaviour and outcomes. (Steinmo, 2008).

Key concepts Path Dependencies: what happened at an earlier point will affect what can happen later. Reversal costs are high and institutional arrangements hard to completely ‘undo’. Policy concerns and interests become constructed within parameters. Positive feedback loops: once a set of institutions is in place, actors, organisations and other institutions adapt their activities in ways which reflect and reinforce the path. Timings and event sequences: both the timing and ordering of events can shape outcomes. The speed of causal processes and outcomes: there are both fast- and slow-moving causal processes and outcomes (cumulative, threshold and chain causal processes). Last two radically alter the time-frames of our explanations.

Key concepts Critical junctures: those rare and relatively short-lived periods when institutional arrangements are placed on a particular path. During these periods actors may be able to produce significant change. Punctuated equilibrium: long-run stability in policy-making is subject to occasional seismic shifts when existing institutions and issue definitions break down and pressure for change accumulates to the point where is cannot be ignored.

… and what are the problems with it? Ideas also matter too (not just institutions), so does HI underplay the importance of actors, perhaps?: Too much focus on reproduction of institutions? (similar to critiques of theories of structuration); Focus on political elites (little about the populous); Important to remember that not all institutions will be changed, adapted or maintained and that the speeds of change may be variable too.

Things to keep in mind when thinking about ‘a Legacy’ How might a legacy manifest itself? As a discourse As policy/ies As specific social attitudes As a legislative programme But how is this implemented? Any impacts? As a type of institution/institutional change? All are different things!

Things to keep in mind when thinking about a Thatcherite Legacy Thatcherism was (and arguably still is) all of these at various stages Requires us to think about temporality of Thatcherism and of policy change.

Using these ideas: Thatcherism and Crime/Criminal Justice

Who was Margaret Thatcher? Leader of the Conservative Party 1975-90. PM of the UK 1979-90. Either “the saviour of the nation” OR “the Devil incarnate” depending on your political beliefs!

What happened to crime (etc)? Rise in crime (Fig 1). This was generally rising before 1979, but the rate of increase picked up after early 1980s and again in early 1990s. Fear of crime rises (tracks recorded crime rates, Fig 2). Levels of punitive sentiment rise (tracks recorded crime rates, Fig 3 and 4).

Figure 1: Property Crime Per Capita (Home Office Recorded Statistics and BCS)

Figure 2: Percentage worried about crime (BCS 1982-2005)

Fig 4: Punitive opinion* (excluding the death penalty) and recorded crime in England and Wales, 1980-2013 *Based on eight CSE&W and BSAS items relating to sentencing, CJS doing a good job, obeying the law (but excluding those relating to the death penalty).

Fig 4: Shifting Social Attitudes (BSAS)

Thatcherism and crime: What might a ‘Thatcherised’ CJS have looked like? Social workers ‘‘created a fog of excuses in which the muggers and burglars operate’’, Riddell, 1989:171). [anti-penal welfarism?] “Safety on the streets” (Riddell, 1985: 193). “never … economise on law and order” (Savage, 1990: 91). [crime control models of policing?] Pro-capital punishment. [harsher penalties?]

But what did we actually get But what did we actually get? (Or: The Absence of ‘Thatcherite’ Action on Criminal Justice) 1982-1991: Generally speaking, liberal policies, but with the rhetoric of ‘toughening’ sentences (in order to reduce the use of imprisonment). 1993 and since: few (if any) liberal criminal justice policies, a lot more punitive sentences. BUT, and crucially these build on the rhetoric of toughness established earlier. So ‘getting tough’ after Thatcher’s time in office.

Fig 5: Changes to the legislative agenda: Proportion of attention to law and crime in Queen’s Speech (from policyagendas.org)

Thatcher’s CJS Legacy

More ways of being punitive Thatcher’s CJS Legacy Empty! More ways of being punitive

Making Sense of this The desire to reduce imprisonment was a long-standing Home Office aspiration. But following the death of the rehabilitative ideal and the emergence of New Right rhetoric, the route to reducing imprisonment was to toughen non-custodial sentences. This toughening was initially targeted on a few types of offences/offenders.

Making Sense of this Michael Howard’s arrival at the Home Office was a critical appointment; recognised anxiety rejected HO doctrine and adopted toughness as a policy stance.

Making Sense of this Institutional aims + punctuated equilibrium (Home Office). The role of ideas (rehabilitation, popular concerns) and of new knowledge. The role of specific agents who ‘shape paths’ (Michael Howard). Outcomes at national level (see next slide).

Average Prison Popn (Key years): Making Sense of this Average Prison Popn (Key years): 1970: 39028 1979: 42220 1993: 44552 1994: 48621 2013: 84249

What have we learnt? HI does feel slightly too ‘sticky’; social actors do have roles to play/power; but possibly only certain ones and at certain moments. Agency is real (for some). That said, Labour have followed (and extended) Howard’s lead, so path dependencies can be said to exist. Ideas and new forms of knowledge are key during moments of change; at points of change it might be possible for some social actors to create quite radical changes if their ideas strike the right chords. The 1970s was one such moment for UK society, the 1990s another for our criminal justice system. Slow-mo’ processes.

Things to keep in mind when thinking about a Thatcherite Legacy Expressed ideas do not always bear fruit (or do so only slowly). >5-10years? Policies/Acts may work against one another (social security + unemployment) Legislative changes do not always lead to policy or distributive changes Academic assessments are often short term – yet change may take years.

Things to keep in mind when thinking about a Thatcherite Legacy We tend to work in silos, so few have examined how changes in housing may effect (for example) crime rates. ‘Cascade/Spill-over Effects’? Social attitudes change slowly; inter-generational replacement. ‘Thatcherite’ dominance of key Depts came after 1990. M Howard; P Lilley; M Portillo; N Lamont; etc.

Things to keep in mind when thinking about a Thatcherite Legacy Some institutions will work to support the establishment of a legacy. (The creation of ‘New Labour’ for example). What came before key too: Thatcher needed Heath’s Selsdon Man (forged a path). So ideas may be stripped of their labels, but continue to have purchase. (BUT: Some changes gonna happen anyway!)

New Project: Exploring Individual-Level Experiences. Via the re-analysis of birth cohort studies: 1946 Cohort The National Child Development Study The Birth Cohort Study Next Steps Main focus likely to be on NCDS/BCS70.

Outline of NCDS (1958) National sample. N = 17,733 Every child born in one week in March 1958. Interviews with parents, teachers, cohort members themselves, their spouses/children Test and medical data too. Interviews in 58; 65; 69; 74; 81; 91; 99; 04; 08; 12.

Outline of BCS70 (1970) National sample. N = 16,135 Every child born in one week in April 1970. Interviews with parents, teachers, cohort members themselves and their children. Test and medical data too. Interviews in 70; 75; 80; 86; 92; 96; 99; 04; 08; 12.

Key Research Questions/Foci Impact on housing and employment careers Social security and Schooling policies How these influenced offending, victimisation and punitive sentiments Combines ideas HI/CI and life-course perspectives.

Do the sorts of policies which governments pursue … Create issues which need to be attended to later (‘policies create politics’)? Alter the sorts of opportunities open to individual members of society, and in so doing can alter the life courses of individual citizens? An idea drawn from historical institutionalism An idea drawn from the Life-course Perspective

Do the sorts of policies which governments pursue … Affect the timings of key transition points and staging/stages of individual lives (e.g. commencement of family formation), and in so doing does this encourage some into offending or leave them at risk of victimization? An idea drawn from the Life-course Perspective

Do the sorts of policies which governments pursue … establish individual- AND national-level path dependencies which may become harder to ‘shrug-off’ as time persists? An idea drawn from historical institutionalism An idea drawn from the Life-course Perspective

Keeping in Touch Email newsletter (s.farrall@sheffield.ac.uk) http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/law/research/projects/crimetrajectories Email newsletter (s.farrall@sheffield.ac.uk) Twittering: @Thatcher_legacy