Exploring the long term effects
of 'Thatcherite' social and
economic policies for crime
Stephen Farrall (CCR, Sheffield Univ) Will
Jennings (Politics, Soton Univ); and Emily
Gray (CCR, Sheffield Univ).
29th April 2015; Southampton Univ.
An Outline
• Outlining our framework (and ‘dependent
variable’)
• How were crime rates related to
Thatcherite social and economic policies?
• What happened when crime rates rose?
• Towards a conclusion …
Our Approach:
Drawing on Historical Institutionalism
• 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.
What is HI?
• Institutions are: “… 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: 2)
• “… neither a particular theory nor a specific method. It is best
understood as an approach to studying politics. This approach is
distinguished from other social science approaches by its attention
to real world empirical questions, its historical orientation and its
attention to the ways in which institutions structure and shape
political behaviour and outcomes.”. Steinmo, 2008.
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.
What are the main
concepts within HI?
• 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 fastand slow-moving causal processes and outcomes (cumulative,
threshold and chain causal processes).
Last two radically alter the time-frames of our explanations.
What are the main
concepts within HI?
• 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 policymaking 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.
Figure 1: Property Crime Per Capita (Home
Office Recorded Statistics and BCS)
In which ways might this be
a legacy of ‘Thatcherite’
policies?
• Economic change
• Changes in the
housing market
• Changes in social
security provision
• Changes in
education policies
(esp. after 1988)
Economic Changes
• During the 1970s there was a move away
from the commitment to Keynesian
policies and full employment.
• Dramatic economic restructuring overseen
by Thatcher governments.
• Consequently, levels of unemployment
rose through the 1980s (see Fig 2).
Figure 2: Unemployment Rate (%), 1970-2006
Economic Changes
This in turn led to
increases in levels
of inequality
(Figure 3),
augmented by
changes in taxation
policies which
favoured the better
off.
Figure 3: Income Inequality
(Gini coefficient), 1970-2006
The Economy and Crime in
Post-War Britain
• Using time series analyses for 1961-2006
Jennings et al (2012) find statistically
significant relationships for:
1: the unemployment rate on the rate of property crime
(consistent with other studies),
2: we also find that the crime-economy link
strengthened during this period.
3: (economic inequality just outside bounds of
significance).
Housing Policy
• 1980 Housing Act (+ others): created RTB
– saw a huge rise in owner-occupation.
• Created residualisation of council housing;
transient/marginalised residents with low
levels of employment (Murie, 1997).
• Contributed to increases in inequality
(Ginsberg, 1989) and concentration of
crime (paper available on request).
Social Security
• 1980-1985: Some tinkering with the
DHSS.
• 1986 Social Security Act based on Fowler
Review.
• Following this payments reduced for many
individual benefits claimants (whilst total
spend increased due to unemployment).
Social Security
• Evidence to suggest that reductions in
government expenditure are associated
with rises in crime during the 1980s (Reilly
and Witt, 1992).
• Jennings et al (2012) suggest that
increases in welfare spending is
associated with declines in the property
crime rate.
Education
• Changes in education policies encouraged
schools to exclude children in order to
improve place in league tables.
• Exclusions rose during the 1990s,
reaching a peak of 12,668 in 1996-97.
Education
• Dumped on the streets this fuelled ASB
(Home Office RDS Occ. Paper No. 71).
• The BCS 1992-2006 shows sudden jump of
people reporting “teens hanging around” to
be a problem from an average of 8% before
2001 to 30% after 2002.
• School exclusions helped to create
Labour’s discourse of ASB and need for
C&DA 1998.
British Crime Survey ASB items
Anti-Social Behaviour (Common Problems)
4
Mean
3.5
3
2.5
2
1983
1988
1993
Noisy Neighbours
Rubbish
Abandoned Cars
1998
Year
Vandals
Drunks
2003
2008
2013
Teens Hanging Around
Race Attack
What happened to crime (etc)?
• Rise in crime (Fig 5). 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 crime rates, Fig 6).
• People want to see an increase in spending on
the police/prisons (with decrease of spending on
social security, Fig 7).
Figure 5: Property Crime Per Capita (Home
Office Recorded Statistics and BCS)
Figure 6: Percentage worried about
crime (BCS 1982-2005)
Fig 7: Priorities for extra spending
(social security vs. police) BSAS 1983-2009
Using these ideas in our
research: Criminal Justice
Acts 1982-1998
Charting Changes in State-led Punitiveness
(1982-1998)
Signifiers of Punitiveness
Acts (by year of enactment)
82
Decreases in punitiveness
Limits to the use of imprisonment
84

85
86

Increased rights for suspects

Limits to police powers

Increases in punitiveness
Increased post-prison release/community controls
Increases in police powers/resources
Right to silence questioned or amended







93
94
96
97




Mandatory sentences (or similar provisions)

Changes to the burden of proof










‘Failure to respond’ used in sentencing

Increases in actual levels of imprisonment

Increases in youth imprisonment


Changes to case disclosure

Limits to the use of bail



Limits to the decision-making of parole boards

Automatic life sentences

Blurring of civil and criminal law
98

Increases in sentence lengths/imprisonment
Unduly lenient sentences can be appealed
91

Diverting cases away from Crown Courts
Decreases in actual levels of imprisonment
88

Temporality of Thatcherite
Policy Spillover
Developments post-1993:
• Howard (Home Sec 1993-97) talks tough on crime.
• Prison population rises immediately (Newburn 2007).
• Rise in average sentences: Riddell 1989:170;
Newburn 2007:442-4.
• Trend continued, appears due to tough sentences
and stricter enforcement. MoJ 2009: 2-3 cites
mandatory minimum sentences (aimed at burglars
and drug traffickers) as a cause.
• Prison population grew by 2.5% p.a. from 1945 to
1995, but by 3.8% p.a. 1995-2009 (MoJ, 2009: 4).
Making Sense of this
Prison Popn 1970-2013
1970
1980
1990
year
2000
2010
Average Prison Popn (Key years):
1970: 39028
1979: 42220
1993: 44552
1994: 48621
2013: 84249
Labour Party’s Response
• Move to the political right.
• ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of
crime’.
• Focus on ‘young offenders’ (Sch
Exclusions related to?).
• Did not oppose Crime (Sentences) Act
1997 despite it being quite draconian (‘3
strikes’, minimum mandatory sentences).
Labour In Government
Needed to do something about crime
because …
a) it actually was a problem (peak was in
1994) but still a source of public concern
b) they needed to be seen to be doing
something to avoid being accused of having
‘gone soft on crime again’.
What have Govts done?
• They devote more time to crime in it’s
expressed policy agenda (Fig 9).
• Little sustained interest in crime until 60s
(2%).
• After 1979 GE rises to 8%.
• Big jump again in 1996 (15%).
• Thereafter runs at or near to 20%.
Figure 9: Proportion of attention to law and crime in
Queen’s Speech (from policyagendas.org)
What have Govts done?
• Farrall and Jennings report statistically
significant relationships for:
1: national crime rate on Govt attention on
crime in Queen’s Speeches, and,
2: effects of public opinion on Govt. attention
on crime in Queen’s Speeches.
• So the Govt responds to crime rates and
expressions of public concern about crime.
Towards a Conclusion
• Thatcherism was a mix of both neo-liberal
and neo-conservative instincts.
• Changes which were driven by neo-liberal
instincts (housing, employment, social
security and education) led to rises in crime.
• Rises in crime ‘provoked’ a neo-conservative
set of responses to crime (‘tougher’ prison
sentences). This, and the improving
economy, brought crime down.
Towards a Conclusion
• Thatcher’s legacy for crime and the criminal
justice system has been the following:
1. Crime rise in 1980s-1990s.
2. New ‘consensus’ on responses to crime.
3. CJS now geared up for high volume crime
(but crime rates falling).
• Causes of crime therefore extremely complex
and intertwined with other social policy arena.
Figure 10: A model of Neo-Lib and Neo-Con
policies and crime?
Outline of current work
ESRC grant :
• Analyses of BCS, BSAS, GHS, BES + national level data.
Data sets to be made available autumn 2015.
• Training workshop (Manchester 20th May 2015) FULL
• 40min documentary film made (Doc Fest 2015?)
• http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/law/research/projects/crimetrajectories
• Email newsletter (s.farrall@sheffield.ac.uk)
• Twittering: @Thatcher_legacy
Further Info/Readings
Farrall, S. and Hay, C. (2010) Not So Tough on Crime? Why Weren’t the Thatcher Governments More Radical
In Reforming the Criminal Justice System? British Journal of Criminology, 50(3):550-69.
Farrall, S. and Jennings, W. (2012) Policy Feedback and the Criminal Justice Agenda: an analysis of the
economy, crime rates, politics and public opinion in post-war Britain, Contemporary British History,
26(4):467-488.
Farrall, S. and Jennings, W. (2014) Thatcherism and Crime: The Beast that Never Roared?, in Farrall S., and
Hay, C. Thatcher’s Legacy: Exploring and Theorising the Long-term Consequencies of Thatcherite
Social and Economic Policies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 207-233.
Farrall, S. and Hay, C. (2014) Locating ‘Thatcherism’ In The ‘Here and Now’, in Farrall S., and Hay, C.
Thatcher’s Legacy: Exploring and Theorising the Long-term Consequencies of Thatcherite Social and
Economic Policies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 315-339.
Farrall, S., Gray, E., Jennings, W. Hay, C. (2014) Using Ideas Derived from Historical Institutionalism to
Illuminate the Long-term Impacts on Crime of ‘Thatcherite’ Social and Economic Policies: A Working Paper.
Hay, C. and Farrall, S. (2014) Interrogating and Conceptualising the Legacy of Thatcherism, in Farrall S., and
Hay, C. Thatcher’s Legacy: Exploring and Theorising the Long-term Consequencies of Thatcherite
Social and Economic Policies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3-30.
Hay, C. and Farrall, S. (2011) Establishing the ontological status of Thatcherism by gauging its ‘periodisability’:
towards a ‘cascade theory’ of public policy radicalism, British Journal of Politics and International
Relations, 13(4): 439-58.
Jennings, W., Farrall, S. and Bevan, S. (2012) The Economy, Crime and Time: an analysis of recorded
property crime in England & Wales 1961-2006, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40(3):192210.