Was the New Right Any Good
at Controlling Crime and
Imposing ‘Law and Order’?:
The Case of 1980s Britain
Stephen Farrall (CCR, Sheffield Univ)
15th April 2015; Rutgers University
An Outline
• Introducing the 1980s New Right
• 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 …
The 1980s New Right
The Rise of The New Right
UK: ‘Thatcherism’ (1979-1990 – 1997 –
since?).
Aust’: Fraser (75-83) and Hawke (83-89).
Canada: Mulroney (84-93).
USA: ‘Reaganomics’ (1981-89 – since?)
NZ: ‘Rogernomics’ (1984-90) ‘Ruthanasia’
(1990-93). (Roger Douglas and Ruth
Richardson).
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.
• So … Politics does not simply create policies; policies also create
politics.
• 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?
• 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.
• Held to have created residualisation of
council housing; transient/marginalised
residents with low levels of employment.
• 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
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).
Rise of Prison Popn
Prison Popn 1970-2013
1970
1970: 39028
84249
1980
1990
year
2000
Average Prison Popn (Key years):
1979: 42220
1993: 44552
1994: 48621
2010
2013:
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.
• Sharp rises in crime ‘provoked’ a neoconservative 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 with Colin Hay, Emily Gray and Will Jennings:
• Analyses of BCS, BSAS, GHS, BES + national level data.
Data sets to be made available autumn 2015.
• “Generation Right” (40min documentary film)
• http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/law/research/projects/crimetrajectories
• Email newsletter (s.farrall@sheffield.ac.uk)
• Twittering: @Thatcher_legacy