Can we detect ‘Thatcher’s Children’ in
data on attitudes to crime and
disorder: A longitudinal analysis of age,
period and cohort effects.
Emily Gray*, Maria Grasso* Stephen
Farrall*, Will Jennings† and Colin Hay *
*University of Sheffield †University of
Southampton
Introduction
Crime became a key issue in UK political and social agendas in
three ways:
1: long-term social and economic trends led to increases in crime
rates from the 1960s.
2: the economic and social policies (neo-liberalism) pursued from
the 1970s/80s accentuated these trajectories, adding to
rises in crime.
3: competition between political parties on the issue of crime
raised the profile of crime as an issue and added to levels
of public concern over crime.
4: feed-back loops between these operated to foster those
circumstances which produced crime and in turn led to
the rise of crime as an object of political concern (neoconservatism).
Theoretical and substantive contexts
• Other authors have sought highlighted the links
between crime and political/ cultural shifts (Garland,
2001, Young, 1999). However:
• Both cite ‘post modernity’, ‘late modernity’ as driving
factors – no political dimension.
• Ignore specific Government policies.
• Focus on experiences of the middle class.
Age, Period, Cohort Analysis
• Longitudinal analysis of BCS/ CSEW data (1982-2012)
affords an APC analysis (Ryder, 1965).
• Exploration of the unique contributions of three types of
time-related variations - ‘age, period, and cohort’ effects.
• Age effects - changes in the life course; period effects arise via specific cultural and economic changes; cohort
effects are the core of social change and represent the
effects of formative experiences (Ryder 1965).
• Ipsos Mori :‘Generation Y’ / ‘millennials’
Table 1. Political Generations in British Crime Survey Data
Cohorts
(1) PreWelfare State
Generation
(2) Post-War (3) Wilson/
Consensus
Callaghan
Generation Generation
(4) Thatcher (5) New
and Major’s Labour’s
Children
Children
Era/period
1930-1944
1945-1964
1965-1978
1979-1996
1997-2010
Years of
birth
1910-1924
1925-1944
1945-1958
1959-1976
1977-1990
N (Tot.
620,900)
40,528
160,533
147,087
195,026
77,726
Thatcher’s children? BCS/ CSEW data 1982-2012
Table 2. BCS indicators for analysis
Questionnaire item
Original response
categories
Recode for analysis
Could you tell me how worried you are about...?
Having your home broken into and being burgled
1
2
3
4
Very worried
Fairly worried
Not very worried
Not at all worried
1/2= 1 worried about being
mugged
3/4= 0 not worried
Could you tell me how worried you are about...?
Being mugged and robbed
1
2
3
4
Very worried
Fairly worried
Not very worried
Not at all worried
1/2= 1 worried about being
mugged
3/4= 0 not worried
How common a problem (in this area) are...?
Groups of teenagers making a nuisance .
1 Very big problem
2 Fairly big problem
3 Not very big problem
4 Not a problem
How common a problem (in this area) are...?
Noisy Neighbours.
1 Very big problem
2 Fairly big problem
3 Not very big problem
4 Not a problem
1/2= 1 teenagers a problem
3/4= 0 not a problem
Multivaraite models for analysis
• Sex
• Ethnicity
• N Victimisation (in prior 12 months)
• Marrital status
• Employment status
• Education history
• Income
• Tenure
Table 3. Results from multivariate identified APC models
Fear of
Mugging
Fear of
Burglary
Problem –
Neighbours
Problem Teenagers
1.332***
1.504***
1.541***
1.561***
1.441***
1.750***
1.997***
2.054***
1.303***
1.777***
2.220***
2.324***
1.364***
1.609***
2.517***
2.620***
35-59 years of age
0.973*
0.966*
0.954*
0.952***
60+ years of age
0.959
0.871***
0.711***
0.761***
Year of interview
0.965***
0.952***
0.996***
0.979***
N
347,512
348,622
429,631
429,197
Pre-Welfare State (ref. cat.)
Post-War Consensus
Generation
Wilson/ Callaghan
Generation
Thatcher’s Children
Generation
New Labour’s Children
Generation
16-34 years of age (ref. cat.)
Summary of results
• Recent victimisation, gender, ethnicity, low education, low
income, being in rented accommodation linked to worry
about crime and anti-social behaviour.
• Pre-welfare state generation least worried about burglary
/ robbery and anti-social behaviour.
• Thatcher’s generation most worried about property crime.
• Wilson/ Callaghan’s generation most worried about
mugging.
• New Labour’s children most concerned about anti-social
behaviour
Teenagers hanging around – perception of problem by
generation
Teenagers Hanging Around….?
Perceptions of disorder
• ASB became a label attached to a huge range of nuisance
and petty crime in the 1990s by New Labour (Burney,
2005).
• Central part of government’s crime control policy.
• Saying teenagers hanging around is ‘a fairly serious
problem’ is to report both the existence and significance of
symbolic cues of disorder (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004).
• This underlines the contention that the political culture
into which one is born, has a lasting effect on an
individual’s political values, and their perception of crime
and disorder.
Summary of results
• Strong effect of personal and social variables.
• The APC models also provide evidence for ‘pure’
generational effects.
• Evidence of clear political socialisation periods,
particularly relating to the emotional topic of
crime over generations.