LSE 400: Thinking Like a Social
Scientist
American Exceptionalism in Crime, Punishment
and Inequality
Nicola Lacey (Law, Gender and Social Policy); David Soskice
(Government)
International variation in crime and punishment
• Huge variations in levels of crime and
punishment across states – and even between
states at comparable levels of economic and
political development
• Opportunities afforded by these variations to
build explanatory hypotheses about the
linkages between not only criminal justice
policy and crime, but also crime, punishment
and broader social, political and economic
institutions and cultural dynamics
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
3
Questions for comparative analysis
• 1) How can we explain the different trajectories of crime and
punishment in different countries?
• 2) What light can a comparative analysis shed on our
understanding of how patterns of crime and punishment are
produced, and in particular of the relative importance of
penal policy and of other factors – social and economic policy,
culture, the structure of political institutions – in producing
those patterns?
• 3) What light can comparative studies throw on the wisdom –
or possibility - of ‘transplanting’ policies from one country to
another?
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
4
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
5
The Ratio of Serious Violent Crime and of Homicides, United
States, England and Wales, Canada and New Zealand, based
on offences per 100,000 of the population.
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
6
Ic
el
an
Ja d
p
N an
or
w
F i ay
n
D lan
en d
m
Sw ark
Sw e
itz den
er
la
G nd
re
e
I re c e
l
Be and
lg
iu
Fr m
G anc
er e
m
a
Au ny
st
ria
I ta
T u ly
rk
C ey
an
Au ad
st a
ra
l
Lu K ia
x e or
e
N mb a
et ou
he r
rla g
O
n
EC Po ds
D rt u
av ga
er l
U
ag
ni
e
te
d Sp
Ki a
ng in
Sl
d
ov H u om
ak ng
R a
N ep ry
e
C w ubl
ze Ze ic
ch a
R lan
ep d
ub
M lic
ex
ic
U
ni Po o
te la
d
n
St d
at
es
Prison Population Rates
250
725
200
150
100
50
0
Source: OECD, 2007; International Centre for Prison Studies,
LSE2007
400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
7
Imprisonment Trends (1950-2010)
200
Imprisonment per 100,000
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
USA 1950-1975
Finland
England & Wales
Germany
Norway
Netherlands
Source: International Centre for Prison Studies (2010); European
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in
Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice (2010); John Pratt,
Crime, Punishment and Inequality, 6
British Journal of Criminology (2008)
February 2015
20 0 7
09
/1
0
20
06
20
04
20
00
20
95
19
90
19
85
19
80
19
75
19
70
19
65
19
60
19
55
19
19
50
0
Sweden
8
Imprisonment Trends (1950-2010)
800
USA
700
England &
Wales
Imprisonment per 100,000
600
Norway
500
Sweden
400
300
Finland
200
Germany
100
Netherlands
20
07
20
09
/1
0
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Source: International Centre for Prison Studies, 2010; Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
John Pratt, British Journal of Criminology 2008
2015
20
06
20
04
20
00
19
95
19
90
19
85
19
80
19
75
19
70
19
65
19
60
19
55
19
50
0
9
An institutional explanation?
• The economic dimension: labour market arrangements; production
regime; education and training (Hall and Soskice 2000)
• The political dimension: electoral and party systems; the bureaucracy
(Lijphardt 1984, 1999)
• The welfare state (Esping-Andersen 1990)
• The constitution (Lacey 2008)
• Inclusionary and exclusionary dynamics in both prevailing institutional
structures and in culture
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
10
Inequality and Redistribution (ca. 1970-1995)
Bel gi um
80
Sweden
Po v e r ty r e d u c tio n
70
Fi nl and
Nor way
Net her l ands
Denm ar k
60
Fr ance
50
Ger m any
UK
I t al y
40
Aust r al i a
Canada
30
20
Swi t zer l and
US
10
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
d9/d5 ratio
Source: Torben Iversen and David Soskice, ‘Distribution and Redistribution: The
Shadow of the Nineteenth Century’, (2009) 61:3 World Politics 438-86:
LSE 400 American
Luxembourg Income Study and OECD.
Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
11
Vocational Training and Redistribution
Bel gi um
80
Denmark
Fi nland
Norway
Netherl ands
Sweden
Po v e rty re d u c tio n
70
Franc e
60
UK
50
Germany
Ital y
Aus tral ia
40
Canada
30
20
Swi tz erland
USA
10
0
10
20
30
40
Vocational training intensity
Source: Torben Iversen and David Soskice, ‘DistributionLSE
and 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Redistribution: The Shadow of the Nineteenth Century’, (2009)
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
61: 3 World Politics 438-86 UNESCO 1999.
2015
50
60
12
Literacy and Education, (1994-8)
30
15
0
45
60
Irel and
Uni t ed Ki ngdom
U. S.
New Zeal and
Canada
Aust ral i a
Bel gi um (Fl anders)
Fi nl and
Net herl ands
Germany
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
0
5
10
15
20
25
NOTE: The top bars (using top scale) show the percentage of adults who have not completed an upper
secondary education but have high scores on document literacy. The bottom bars (using bottom scale) show
the percentage of adults taking the test who get the lowest score, averaged across three test categories.
Source: Torben Iversen and David Soskice, ‘DistributionLSE
and400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
Redistribution: The Shadow of the Nineteenth Century’, (2009)
61: 3 World Politics 438-86
2015
13
United
States
United
Kingdom
Australia
New
Zealand
Canada
Residential
Segregation:
(Ethnic)
10.8
[11.4]
Black
1.7
[9.9]
S Asian
0.1
[2.7]
Asian
0.0
[19.6]
Maori
1.4
[11.2]
Asian
Prison per cap
701
141
115
155
129
73
Homicide rate
5.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.85
0.9
Literacy score 5th 136.7
percentile
151.2
145.1
164.8
144.5
214
Child poverty
12.1
10.9
11.7
13.3
7.3
23.1
Swe
Notes:
(1) Residential segregation: % population in large cities living in tracts where (a) > 70%
ethnic (non-white), (b) one ethnic group dominant, (c) > 30% of group in city live in
these tracts. The number in [] is % of main ethnic group in cities analysed. 2001-2
Johnston, Poulsen, Forrest, ms 2005
(2) Prison data 2002-3; 2004 Canada
(3) International Adult Literacy Survey 2000 OECD (4) Unicef, 2012
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
14
Methodological question:
similarity vs difference in comparative analysis
• Difference tends to become salient in
comparative research, but…
• Similarity also needs to be explained.
• Our analysis in this lecture focuses on
explaining the very stark differences just
described, but…
• Here is one striking similarity, the explanation
for which must be part of any full analysis:
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
15
Gender and Crime: US
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
16
Gender and Crime, UK
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
17
Gender and Crime: UK
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
18
Women as % of prison population on
latest World Prison Brief data
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
USA
Australia
Sweden
Germany
Scotland
Canada
England and Wales
Ukraine
France
9.0%
7.7%
5.8%
5.7%
5.4%
5.1%
4.5%
4.4%
3.3%
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
19
US
Canada
Police
Prosecutors
Local judges
Zoning
Schools
City/municipal app
DA elected county or
Most states
Zoning Boards
Property tax by
by mayor
multi- county district
elected on county
appointed by locally
elected School Board
(sometimes
or multi-county
elected
at School District
elected)
district
Council/Mayor
Provincial
Provincial, Federal
government
defined policies
Office of Provincial
Provincial AG
AG; operating
Provincial policies
procedures,
appointments,
training
England
Home Office
Attorney General
Lord Chancellor
Min Housing rules,
and Wales
appoints Chief
(government agency)
(Ministry of Justice)
right of appeal to
Constables
NZ
National govt policies
Minister
Government
Attorney General
appoints (under
appoints (remain
Min of Police,
private lawyers)
prosecution
national guidelines
Attorney General
National guidelines
National system
(Ministry of Education)
independence)
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
20
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
21
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
22
Most serious violent crime committed by men from late teens to
late 20s; largely in big cities
Very largely from underprivileged families and with weak
education – high school dropouts in US, early leavers UK
Start with UK and US: UK bad and US worse if we go back to 1950s
– (compared to Germany and Sweden)
But from 1970s to mid 1990s UK violent crime doubled but US
quadrupled
Since mid 1990s violent crime halved in UK and US – though
differences across cities
So 3 periods of violent crime in UK and US:
1950s and 1960s relatively low
1970s through mid 1990s doubles in UK quadruples in US
mid 1990s to present falls significantly (roughly halves) UK and US
Key methodological hypothesis:
Choosing crime is like many (perhaps most) other choices of economic and
educational activities made by young people from mid teens to mid twenties
Constrained choice:
My background is given (imagine socially underprivileged and bad schools):
What jobs are available given my education, skills and social connections?
Does it pay me to invest more in education and skills (what sort?) and social
connections (what sort?) to increase choice of jobs/activities (inc crime)?
Good period: 1950s and 1960s
These choices depend on job opportunities provided by labour markets – and
these change hugely across the 3 periods
1950s 1960s: Huge ‘Fordist’ assembly line auto plants etc
needed semi-skilled (male) workers – learn simple range of tasks requiring physical
dexterities and stamina, plus discipline
social skills not important, education level not important (but don’t drop out of
high/secondary school – bad signal for accepting discipline)
strong unions bargained good wages and conditions
Good period: 1950s and 1960s
1950s 1960s: choice not difficult
even if from bad
schools/background with limited
social connections – accept
discipline and get decent job
and avoid crime because that risks
losing decent jobs and difficulty
getting back in with criminal record
Bad period: mid 1970s to mid 1990s
Mid 1970s to mid 1990s Growing consequences of Information technology revolution:
many good effects but …..
implies gradual collapse of Fordism/ end of decent mass semi-skilled employment for
low-educated young males
bad period for big cities where most big Fordist plants located – especially in US: eg
Chicago, New York nearly go bankrupt
Difficult choices for disadvantaged young males:
(1) Upgrade educationally. Standard middle class choice as proportion staying
on for higher education and hence better careers generated by IT revolution.
But requires good schools and social connections.
Bad period: mid 1970s to mid 1990s
Choice (2): work legally in low-skill employment, (non-unionized); but real hourly
earnings for low-skilled males collapse in this period (here shown for US):
low-skill male
real hrly
earnings in US
Bad period: mid 1970s to mid 1990s
Choice (3): invest in crime, build ‘bad’ social connections in high school and/or drop
out
in US, this typically involved membership of street gang
ability to earn money from protection and drug-sales (more later)
Conclusion for Bad Period
For young males from really disadvantaged backgrounds, bad schools, low
‘cultural/social’ capital, no/limited social connections to employment, legal jobs
pretty shit jobs, then crime not a stupid choice – despite all long-term
consequences
Methodological Interlude
Methodology:
This approach often called ‘rational choice’:
(i) Individuals have ‘preferences’:
most people want:
to live comfortably (earn money)
to be approved of (even admired) by their friends and colleagues
(ii) Individual has ‘assets’: human capital (education background); social/cultural
capital: social background, social connections (eg to potential employers, often
indirectly), ability to communicate with those from different backgrounds
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
32
Methodological Interlude
(iii) Given his or her assets, the individual has ‘choices’, and these can and do change
over time
- when industry (1950s/1960s) demanded physically fit young men prepared to
accept industrial discipline, and it didn’t require significant education or
social/communicative skills, that gave one set of choices
- and when those choices were eliminated (mid 1970s on), the choice set
narrowed for those with low/poor education and social capital
(iv) Given his or her assets, preferences and choices, the individual chooses what he
sees as best available option.
(1) Why such a huge increase in violent crime in large US cities (mainly the exindustrial cities where semi-skilled employment had collapsed)?
(2) Why was increase in violent crime in US much larger than in UK (even though
same basic cause – collapse of semi-skilled employment for less educated young
men)?
(1) So why such a huge increase in violent crime in large US cities (mainly the exindustrial cities where semi-skilled employment had collapsed)?
We’ll see that young men with poor education and who couldn’t get decent jobs;
a large proportion of whom were black (some Hispanic);
lived in densely populated very poor areas in city centres (de facto ethnic ghettos) residential segregation or sorting
And then we’ll look at why living in these ghettos generated such a high level of
serious violent crime
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: (1)
Residential Segregation
US cities ‘herd’ the poor (especially poor blacks, also poor hispanics) into densely
populated tracts/neighborhoods; these are the Truly Disadvantaged - William Julius
Wilson
US often called the ‘sorting society’ –
sorting class/ethnicity residentially
Here’s an ethnic map of Chicago:
red dot: 25 White residents
gold: 25 Hispanic residents
blue: 25 Black residents;
the more intense the colour, the denser
the population
check median income here tract by tract:
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130108/BLOGS08/1
30109821/how-rich-is-your-neighborhood
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: (1)
Residential Segregation
Which
very
large US
cities?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4982041
458/in/set-72157624812674967/
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: (1)
Residential Segregation
Addendum: a great website for flicking between median income tract
by tract and race tract by tract is:
http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/citymaps.htm/chicago.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/citymaps.htm
US often called the ‘sorting society’ – sorting class/ethnicity
residentially
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: (1)
Residential Segregation
And
which
are these
very
large US
cities?
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: (1)
Residential Segregation
United
States
United
Kingdom
Australia
New
Zealand
Canada
Sweden
Residential
Segregation:
(Ethnic)
10.8
[11.4]
Black
1.7
[9.9]
S Asian
0.1
[2.7]
Asian
0.0
[19.6]
Maori
1.4
[11.2]
Asian
Prison per cap
701
141
115
155
129
73
Homicide rate
5.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.85
0.9
Literacy score 5th
percentile
136.7
151.2
145.1
164.8
144.5
214
Child poverty
23.1
12.1
10.9
11.7
13.3
7.3
Notes:
(1) Residential segregation: % population in large cities living in tracts where (a) > 70% ethnic, (b) one
ethnic group dominant, (c) > 30% of group in city live in these tracts. The number in [] is % of main
ethnic group in cities analysed. 2001-2 Johnston, Poulsen, Forrest, ms 2005
(2) Prison data 2002-3; 2004 Canada
(3) International Adult Literacy Survey 2000 OECD (4) Unicef, 2012
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: (1)
Residential Segregation
Some more
detailed
comparative data
on (ethnic)
residential
segregation in
matched cities in
US compared to
UK, Canada, NZ
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: (1)
Residential Segregation
Why so much higher residential segregation in US cities
compared to elsewhere?
Free market property forces? In most rich capitalist countries the
better-off live in nicer places – but that doesn’t distinguish US from
UK where residential segregation much lower
But unlike elsewhere, American cities have Zoning Laws which say
how many houses per acre and how many families per building;
these laid down for each neighborhood; so a 2 house per acre/
one family per building zoning rule keeps poor families very
effectively out
And ethnicity (blacks, Hispanics) highly correlated with income/class
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: (2)
Educational Segregation (de facto)
So disadvantaged largely black/hispanic young men with weak job
prospects in these highly residentially segregated poor areas
Strongly reinforced by de facto educational segregation:
So despite famous Supreme Court decision in Brown vs
Board of Education (1954) making school segregation illegal
….
Residential segregation means education remains highly
segregated for low income groups
And US cities choose to spend much less on schools with high
poor/Black/Hispanic children: these ghetto schools often very bad
Mental note:
2 policies which have adverse reinforcing impact on the already disadvantaged in US
(1). Using Zoning Laws creating residential segregation
(2). Significantly lower funding for (de facto racially segregated schools in
these poor areas, reinforcing low educational performance
How do we actually
know that there is
‘lower funding for
(de facto racially
segregated) schools
60%
slope of line
is -..174
.
Share of City
Spending on
Education
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
in these poor areas
in US cities’ as I’ve
just claimed?
0
%
0
%
% Ethnic
50% in City
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: (2)
Educational Segregation (de facto)
Collapse of
decent jobs for
males with low
education and
social skills; but
accept
discipline
From 1980s on,
decent careers
require good
education and
social (and
cultural) skills
Disadvantaged Youth
Low Resources for
Residentially Segregated
Schools
Educational
Segregation
Bad schools
Legal
employment is
sink v low pay
employment
?
Thus crime
attractive but
why violent
crime?
Before seeing why violent crime developed in such a huge way in US
compared to UK we can check that these areas (poor ethnic inner city
areas) were in fact the areas of violent crime
we’ll actually see this had a great deal to do with street gangs; these
were always feature of big city life in US – back to Irish and Italians in
C19th;
but they really develop from mid 1970s through to early 1990s
and key question for us is why?
http://chicagogangs.org/
index.php?pr=GANG_MAP_SOUTH
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
49
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: why did
gangs develop in this period?
3 factors led to big surge in gangs
(1) As we’ve argued: A lot of disadvantaged young men, largely ethnic,
with minimal labor market attachments, in these deeply poor
neighborhoods, in effect for whom crime is sensible choice; (prison for 6
months or a year – normal length (??Check) – almost rite of passage)
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: why did
gangs develop in this period?
3 factors led to big surge in gangs
(2) As these neighborhoods became worse thru 1970s and 1980s –
unemployment rising, businesses incl retail moving out – middle classes
also moved out
A key element for any community to work – some form of social
organization – became much weaker. These became increasingly what
sociologists call areas of ‘social disorganization’
Huge increase in US violent crime mid 1970s to mid 1990s: why did
gangs develop in this period?
3 factors led to big surge in gangs
(3) These poor areas were always areas with very limited police presence
on foot – and now police presence was largely in well-armed and
defended police cars
So gangs caused by total lack of protection for individuals in bad areas,
and social disorganization. Young men carried weapons of self-defence.
Violence easily broke out. Joining gangs meant relative safety; enabled
drug-dealing, as well as money from protection.
Much of the gang violence came from establishing gang turf between
neighborhoods. Also, enforcing payments eg from drug dealers.
Three US policies which really ‘caused’ huge rise in violence in US compared to UK
(1). Zoning: Using Zoning Laws creating residential segregation
(2). Education: Significantly lower funding for (de facto racially segregated
schools in these poor areas, reinforcing low educational performance
(3). Policing: Significant under-policing of poor areas, with beat policing almost
absent
Big difference between US and UK policy-making in these areas:
In UK (and Canada, NZ and Australia) policies in these 3 areas made at national
(or state/provincial) level
But in US policies in these 3 areas made at local or city level:
by democratically elected mayors and city councils, or school boards
Similar difference between US and UK policy-making in two other areas: state prosecution
(District Attorneys or DAs) and district judges
In UK (and Canada, NZ and Australia) appointments of public prosecutors and
judges is made at national (or state/provincial) level
But in US DAs and district judges (who judge all criminal cases in first instance)
are directly elected at county or city level in special elections
US
POLICE
STATE PROSECUTORS
DISTRICT JUDGES
ZONING
SCHOOLS
City/municipal app by
DA elected county or multi-
Most states elected on
Zoning Boards appointed
Property tax by elected
mayor (sometimes
county district
county or multi-county
by locally elected
School Board at School
district
Council/Mayor
District
Provincial government
Provincial, Federal defined
Provincial policies
elected)
Canada
Office of Provincial AG;
Provincial AG
operating procedures,
policies
appointments, training
England and
Home Office appoints
Attorney General
Lord Chancellor
Min Housing rules, right of
Wales
Chief Constables
(government agency)
(Ministry of Justice)
appeal to Minister
NZ
Government appoints
Attorney General appoints
Attorney General
National guidelines
(under Min of Police,
(remain private lawyers)
prosecution
national guidelines
independence)
National govt policies
National system (Ministry of
Education)
So why does this matter whether rules/policies/appointments made at national level or
city/local level?
Fundamental difference between US political system and that of every other advanced
country:
Huge range of decisions left to local voters without any national (federal/state) framework
(why its different from Switzerland)
This goes right back in history
This matters most to home owners:
- their home usually their main capital asset;
- and its value depends on local environment:
(i) on low property taxes: so do things as cheaply as possible for us
(ii) on ‘nice’ neighbors (read ‘neighbors like us’)
so zoning rules to keep ethnic poor away from us (this is costless)
(iii) on local safety (especially from violence): so effective policing for us, but not for
poor areas where effective policing expensive and poor beat up poor
(iv) on good schools (for our children): so don’t spend our property taxes on schools in
poor areas
Home owners are the dominant voters:
(1) frequently close to a majority of home owners (largely white)
(2) home owners well-organized in ‘neighborhood’ or
‘homeowner’ associations; and they ensure turnout to vote and
participation in zoning board meetings etc
(3) the poor areas are socially disorganized and turn out low
Why are results different in national elections?
(1) Generally much bigger turnout at national elections, say 70%
versus 30%. So decisive voters in national elections lower income
& don’t want rigid zoning rules
(2) ‘Negative externalities’: Governments at national level want
disadvantaged groups to have reasonable education, because
illiteracy spills over to economic and social problems throughout
country – as do bad pockets of crime in city centers.
LSE 400 American Exceptionalism in Crime,
Punishment and Inequality, 6 February
2015
64