The British Journal of Criminology, 2022, 62, 1069–1076

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac045
Editorial

Interrogating Crime, Politics and

Insecurity: Introducing the Special Issue

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/5/1069/6702088 by guest on 21 September 2022

In recent years, the arrangement of relationships that connect crime to politics has become of
increasing interest of criminologists in all parts of the globe. A growing number of criminologists
have started to focus their attentions on the relationships between crime (broadly understood) and
politics (understood as processes, partisanship and institutions). This has been motivated in part,
by the international financial crisis of 2008–2009, and the subsequent impact of austerity measures.
However, the roots of the efforts to better understand the relationships between politics and crime
can be traced back further than this. Indeed, in the late-1990s and the early-2000s a number of books
(Beckett 1997; Young 1999; Garland 2001) started to highlight the utility of studying the ways in
which political decision-making, changes in contemporary society and shifts in political discourses
around welfare were starting to affect crime and how the public felt about it. These books were
quickly followed by contributions from Tonry (2004), de Grigori (2006), Cavadino and Dignan
(2007), Simon (2007), Lacey (2008), Barker (2009), Wacquant (2009), Bell (2011), Miller (2016)
and Enns (2016) amongst others, often writing in shorter formats.
Many (but not all) of the discussions raised in those texts functioned as responses to earlier
developments in ‘trajectory-shaping’ nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom
(and other parts of Europe), Australia and – albeit it much more recently – China and India.
Right-leaning political parties had taken office in a substantial number of countries from the
late-1970s – with a mandate to fundamentally alter the character of economic and social sys-
tems. Comparable assemblages of policies had formed in eponymous political movements such
as ‘Thatcherism’ (United Kingdom), ‘Reaganism’ (United States), ‘Rogernomics’ (Australia)
and ‘Ruthanasia’ (New Zealand). As these forces sought to ‘role back’ the welfare state- and
nigh-on 30 to 40 years of progressive social and economic policies, downstream the effects
began to materialize in relation to crime, punishment, and public opinion. The political roots of
these developments were identified early by cultural theorist Stuart Hall in the Great Moving
Right show essay (1979), as Britain’s post-war consensus began to evaporate. Then, as the nas-
cent new right project took hold globally, increasing numbers of criminologists sought to make
sense of the ways in which ‘neo-liberal’ economic thinking combined with neo-conservative
social policies had percolated into the criminal justice arena.
Unmistakably, there were trailblazing works on the relationship between politics and crime
before the 1980s, such as Policing the Crisis (Hall et al. 1978) and The New Criminology (Taylor
et al. 1973). However, both of these majestic contributions, were, for a long time among very
few studies engaging with the political aspects of crime. In short, the seismic shift of the 1980s
New Right movement with its ‘washing away’ of the post-war consensus, encouraged more
criminologists to think about how politics and social policies affected crime.

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD).
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
1070  •  The British Journal of Criminology, 2022, Vol. 62, No. 5

UNR AVELLING THE COMPLE X REL ATIONSHIPS BET WEEN CRIME

AND POLITICS
Amongst others, Garland (2001) and Wacquant (2009) produced highly influential publica-
tions on the relationship between punishment, poverty, and the political economy from 2000
onwards. Garland reasoned that governments in America and Britain had begun relying on a
‘culture of control’ to quell the insecurity stemming from late modernity. Meanwhile, Wacquant
argued the ‘punitive turn’ was not triggered by late modernity but neo-liberalism. These tomes
have rightly become canonical texts in criminology, and helped to reinvigorate structural crimi-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/5/1069/6702088 by guest on 21 September 2022

nological endeavours. Nevertheless, these works tended to generalize global trends in a way that
circumvented the complexities of modern politics and the machinery of social policy. Whilst
the global banking crisis of 2008 also revealed that neo-liberal governments were capable of
alternative responses to economic insecurity (such as corporate bailouts and reduced criminal
justice budgets), conspicuously, the 2010 and 2015 United Kingdom General Elections were
not fought on a ‘law and order’ agenda, and this period of intense economic stress was not
proceeded by a stark increase in crime or prison numbers, despite the pronounced economic
downturn (as had been the case in the 1990s). Instead, the data indicates the impact of the
2008–2009 financial crisis on imprisonment for example, was moderated by the institutional
context: rising in those countries with a reduced welfare system and decreasing it in countries
with penal-welfarist policies (Rodríguez-Menés and López-Riba, 2020).
In sum, research has begun to reveal a more nuanced and complicated relationship between
crime and politics. In Scotland, McVie et al. (2020) discovered that against the good news story
of the national ‘crime drop’, the risk of victimisation remained the same or higher for those
whose lives were marked by pre-existing economic deprivation in comparison to the 1990s.
Our own work, using the case study of Thatcherism has demonstrated that political decisions in
one policy arena (i.e. education, welfare, and housing) can have a lagged but significant impact
on crime and punishment - a different type of ‘trickle-down’ effect if you will. Specifically, we
found that Thatcher’s ‘Right to Buy’ housing policy led not just to a concentration of crime in
specific locales but also to a cohort of people, born some 10 years before the policy was enacted,
becoming excluded from social housing, put at greater risk of homelessness (via being locked
out of the housing market), and being increasingly targeted by agencies of social control (i.e. the
police) (Farrall et al. 2016). Similarly, using two birth cohort studies we discovered that those
young people who were in secondary school during the early-1980s were more likely than an
older cohort (in their 20’s) to disengage from school and start to truant (Farrall et al. 2019).
The long-term impact of this was, we confirmed, an increase in adult offending for ‘Thatcher’s
Children’ (Farrall et al. 2020a). Using these longer-term frameworks, we were able to identify
a gradual ‘cascade’ of effects in several policy fields (macro-level developments) that ultimately
shaped citizens experience of crime and the criminal justice system (micro-level developments).
Another insight we have documented has been the role of ‘political socialisation’ in shaping
public attitudes towards crime. Political socialisation is the process by which individuals inter-
nalize political identities, values and behaviour that remain relatively persistent throughout later
life. Again, using long-term data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, we located the
influence of the political generation one grows up in on fear of crime and perceptions of anti-so-
cial behaviour (Gray et al. 2019). This implies that politics can cast a long-term impression on
public sentiments about crime - from young adulthood into middle age and as new policy cul-
tures become established.
We therefore reinforce Pierson’s claim that “a conservative government’s main impact on the
welfare state might be felt a decade or more after it had left office” (Pierson 2004:88). Indeed,
regardless of the material realities, social change is typically underscored by slow-moving polit-
ical and economic processes. As such, it is our contention that criminological analysis is at its
 INTERROGATING CRIME, POLITICS AND INSECURITY  •  1071

most powerful if it can be integrated with a political perspective. Particularly one that is able
to recognize both intended and unintended consequences of policy developments. The value
of focusing on the machinery of social and economic policies on crime, is not simply about
expanding our appreciation of the ‘wider contexts’. Instead, we argue that finely-tuned political
conditions are fundamental to understanding why and how people become embroiled in, and
affected by crime ( Jennings et al. 2017).1

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND CRIME

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/5/1069/6702088 by guest on 21 September 2022

The study of ‘politics’ (political parties, pressure groups, institutions, organisations, legislative
processes, policy-making, ideological underpinnings of approaches, the tricky business and
implementing policies and so on) and crime (rates and incidents of, popular concerns about, the
policing of, systems and degrees of punishment and so on) has, we would contend, come of age.
Now, when one wants an oversight of ‘crime and politics’, one has to recognize that as the social
sciences have evolved and developed, so researchers from different intellectual backgrounds
have started to discover that they share an interest in this topic. There are political scientists who
are interested in crime (Peter Enns, Lisa Miller, Colin Hay, Will Jennings, Georg Wenzerlburger,
Peter Stark, to name but six) who have started to ‘rub shoulders’ with criminologists interested
in political processes (Ian Loader; Tim Newburn; David Garland; Karen Heimer, Susanne
Karsedt; Susan McVie; Jianhong Liu; Kerry Carrington, to name just eight such colleagues).
This special issue builds upon some of these developments and seeks to deepen and forge new
connections in the dialogues which have already started.
The research topics which our contributors (and others) address in the arena of crime and
politics are ‘first order’ social science questions. These are the sorts of questions which first
attract people to the social sciences (such as ‘does which party is governing affect how much
crime we experience?’, ‘why do some countries experience more crime than others?’ and ‘how
do we fashion institutions, organisations and processes that either limit the levels of crime or
best respond to crime once it has happened?’). These questions are, in the truest sense of the
word, ‘academic’. But, they are also of immediate importance; crime is a societal problem, and
societies are governed by politicians, who need to grapple with political and policy processes,
and institutional and organisational imperatives. Crime is adaptive and shapeshifts through time
and place, necessitating continual management. Criminal justice systems are, even if we do not
always acknowledge it, connected to the outcomes of long-term political processes. Meanwhile,
rationality and scientific evidence are not (at least in the present era), the bedrock of how
offenders, victims, witnesses and criminal justice employees are treated when they encounter
crime and justice arenas. This collection will not solve any of these problems, of course, but they
shed further light on the processes which might start us along the route to solving at least some
of them.
One question we want to reflect on is why studying the relationships between politics and crime
is such an interesting and fruitful one. Why ought, we rhetorically ask, more people not be interested
in these relationships? What does approaching crime (etc.) through the lens of political science and
politics more generally bring to our own thinking? These questions become even more pertinent
when one remembers that criminologists have for a long time worked alongside (and, indeed, been
drawn from) other social sciences such as sociology, history, psychology, psychiatry, social work,

1  On a practical note, the investment in high-quality longitudinal data sources from the 1950s (especially repeated cohort
studies, and repeat cross-sectional public opinion and victimisation surveys) has unlocked avenues for researchers to now model
‘interrupted’ or lagged temporal processes associated with crime and politics with confidence. In short, those of us working with
quantitative data have a wealth of information available to us to interrogate long-term relationships between macro-level political
developments and individual level consequences, particularly in the United Kingdom.
1072  •  The British Journal of Criminology, 2022, Vol. 62, No. 5

geography, urban studies, and so on, but much less frequently alongside political scientists. There are
several ‘gains’ which, we think, political science offers criminology. The most obvious is a set of con-
ceptual frameworks. During our collaboration with political scientists on the legacies of Thatcherism,
we benefitted from the work on Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (Baumgartner and Jones 1993).
This concept explains the pattern in which most political systems exhibit periods of stability, after
which internal contradictions emerge and the equilibrium is eventually ‘punctured’, and a new equi-
librium is formed. This process helps to explain why it was that the social movement now referred to
as ‘Thatcherism’ emerged at the time which it did; as the post-war consensus reached a point at which

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/5/1069/6702088 by guest on 21 September 2022

it could no longer be sustained, and when coupled with an external shock (the 1973 Oil Crisis), the
equilibrium was vulnerable to rupture. This does not mean that change was guaranteed, however,
and it took particularly well-placed and determined individuals who read the ‘national mood’ and
were able to offer an alternative vision. Nevertheless, such a model encourages one to think about
the nature and importance of ideas in both political change and the resulting changes for crime and
the criminal justice system. Politicians are nothing without ideas and the literature on constructivist
institutionalism (Blyth 2002) brings to the fore the ways in which ideas help in the construction of
both problems and the solutions to these.
Similarly, a slightly older body of work (and one to which constructivist institutionalism was
in part a response), namely historical institutionalism, assisted our own thinking about the ways
in which and speeds with which change occurs. In some instance there are slow, incremental,
‘build ups’ to change, whilst in others there are sudden rupturings, and both can have immedi-
ate and delayed consequences (Pierson 2004). Thus, working out how such changes emerged
and the consequences which they initiated requires in-depth ‘process tracing’ (George 1979)
to unpick the order, key inputs and steps in the unfolding of events. This provokes an effort to
understand the ideology underpinning policy goals; the means by which these were translated
into legislation (if needed) and then policies, and how these were delivered in practice. In short,
a sophisticated appreciation of policy implementation (Marsh and Rhodes 1992).
When one of us (SF) first started to explore the relationship between Thatcherism and
crime, it quickly emerged that whilst there was an extensive literature on Thatcherism, there was
almost no assessment of the impact of her government’s policies on crime or the criminal justice
system. Whilst it was acknowledged that crime went up during the 1980s, and that aspects of
the criminal justice system had changed, there were only comparatively modest efforts made
to understand how policies (seemingly unconnected to crime, such as education league tables
or council house sales) had produced increases in crime, which in turn (albeit some years after
Thatcher had left office) provoked a ‘toughening’ of the criminal justice system on both sides
of the political spectrum. Few criminologists had examined how changes in political discourse
shaped popular concerns about crime or the desire for a more punitive set of responses. Our
efforts to chart all these processes owe much to our engagement with political science.
Others, of course, have drawn upon different literatures. Cavadino and Dignan (2007)
approach a similar set of issues from a comparative angle, and hence, whilst necessarily need-
ing to pass over some of the details we were able to explore in our studies of Thatcher, have
the considerable advantage of being able to draw upon the experiences of far more cases than
our studies. By exploring ‘varieties of capitalism’, Dignan and Cavadino were able to investigate
how different ‘families’ of countries (who share a geographical and/or ideological proximity)
have responded to crime in different ways. Such accounts inevitably go into less detail on each
jurisdictions’ policy context, but this work has been immensely valuable. However, over time as
countries adopt new varieties of capitalism (or in some cases, adopt capitalism for the first time
in decades), or as new case studies come available for analysis, so we need to re-examine how
the typology is affected. The detailed work of examining policy changes in any country therefore
becomes crucial in developing an understanding of how ‘families’ of countries change over time.
 INTERROGATING CRIME, POLITICS AND INSECURITY  •  1073

Another prominent development highlighting the relationship between criminology and

politics, has been ‘Southern Criminology’ which has sought to challenge the reproduction of
colonial power relations. Carrington et al. (2016) (and others) have begun to reveal the wider
legacies of colonialism, which not only resulted in complex economic inequalities, but also
hierarchies in knowledge production, with the Global North (specifically English-speaking
countries) recognized as the creators of theories and ideas, to the exclusion of the Global South
(Connell 2007). These scholars have engaged in a political and epistemological enterprise, to
democratize knowledge and recognize the diversity of relationships between history, politics,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/5/1069/6702088 by guest on 21 September 2022

and criminology.

E X A MINING LEG ACIES

Echoing an observation of Paul Rock’s (2005) that much criminology is ‘chronocentric’ - focus-
ing mainly on the ‘here and now’, it is curious just how much criminal justice legislation is
rooted in ideas and debates that begun decades earlier (Farrall et al. 2020b). For example, in the
United States, Reagan had relatively little direct effect on the criminal justice system, since that
is a State (rather than a Federal) responsibility. More recently however, Trump’s nominations of
conservative judges to the Supreme Court (and the life-time membership this conveys) looks
likely to affect United States legal processes for many years to come. Similarly, one can read New
Labour’s regeneration programme ‘New Deal for Communities’ (in which crime and disorder
featured heavily) as the response to the effects of rapid deindustrialisation during the 1980s.
In this sense, rapid deindustrialisation left a legacy of impoverished communities and the need
to assist them two or so decades later. Political and policy legacies then, be they of individual
politicians and the ideas they articulate, particular policies or a ‘cohort’ of policies, organisations
created or remodelled, attitudes inculcated or denied and constitutions amended or ignored,
can be detected in many aspects of our legal and criminal justice systems. We have not explicitly
asked our contributors to discuss the legacies of political processes for the criminal justice sys-
tem, but many do so (see the papers by Guiney, Annsion and Condry, Estrada et al, Heimer et
al and ourselves). In the paper by Estrada et al, the ways in which the Swedish state and criminal
justice system responded to drug use since the 1990s is a consequence of a shift in the way in
which drug use was viewed – away from a medical model towards a problem to be dealt with
socially and legally.
And what might the criminological community offer the political scientists? Here the gains
are possibly more modest, not least because crime and criminal justice are just one of many
policy arenas they might be concerned with. Nevertheless, such gains are evident, we think.
First of all, there is the matter of the effects of political decision-making and processes on the
lives of individuals. Generally speaking, and without wishing to be too broad-brushed, political
scientists are used to focusing on ‘the public’, ‘voters’, ‘the electorate’ and similar aggregations of
people, but the effects of particular policies on specific groups of people is a less common topic.
This is all the greater when one considers how policies may affect individuals’ life-courses. Over
the past 20 to 30 years, one has hardly been able to pick up a mainstream criminology journal
without encountering work on the life-course perspective (usually in relation to engagement in
crime as an offender). The life-course perspective, which grew out of sociology, social psychol-
ogy and community studies, has not penetrated political science discourse or theorising. Shifts
in attitudes or behaviours, when they are discussed by political scientists, are normally detected
and theorized in terms of groups of people. For example, the tremendously exciting work on
age, period and cohort analyses gauges the salience of an issue within a political generation.
And whilst the study of attitudinal change employs cutting-edge analysis techniques (including
time series modelling alongside age, period and cohort models), it is firmly based in repeated
1074  •  The British Journal of Criminology, 2022, Vol. 62, No. 5

cross-sectional surveys or national-level data sets. Meanwhile, individual human beings (and
groupings of these) and their life-courses are hidden from view. If political scientists were to
fully embrace individual-level longitudinal data analyses, this would give greater insight into
how some policies, events or periods of leadership affect specific groups of individuals over
time.

THE COLLECTION

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/5/1069/6702088 by guest on 21 September 2022

This collection commences with Emma Bell’s discussion of the populist moment in France,
and asks if it may be regarded as an opportunity rather than a threat when it comes to
promoting less punitive solutions to the crime problem. We then turn to a series of papers
which address attitudes towards crime, punishment and security from a comparative
angle. Enns et al explore how the crime drop in the United Kingdom and United States has
affected public attitudes to crime, finding that attitudes do not simply reflect reporting of
crime rates, but are due to the social experience of crime. Karstedt and Endtricht explore
politicians’ law-and-order rhetoric and citizens’ attitudes and concerns about crime in 26
European countries. They demonstrate that politicians’ law-and-order rhetoric provides
a framing narrative for citizens but limited to their punitive preferences, whilst citizens’
assessment of crime as a problem is shaped by the level of homicide in their country dur-
ing this period. Wenzelberger and Staff explore the rise of private security (as opposed to
state-provided security) in Europe. Their paper is a key first step towards understanding
the complex relationships between private and public security, public demand for security
and regulation.
We then shift focus slightly, and deal with the United Kingdom, and in particular changes in
the United Kingdom since the 1970s and 1980s. Guiney’s paper deals with the limitations of
reducing the politics of punishment to debates over punitiveness, neoliberalism or penal excep-
tionalism, arguing instead that greater understandings of the interplay between ideologies and
power are needed to provide a better account of contemporary penal politics. Staying with the
British Conservative Party, Gray et al explore the ways in which the social welfare policies of the
early-1980s created a set of long-term ‘period effects’ in which those reliant on welfare at specific
points in the 1980s and 1990s were more likely to be drawn into the criminal justice system in
adulthood during the late-1990s.
Newburn and Jones argue that the police draw on powers and practices that both involve pun-
ishment and are experienced as punishment. As such, policing is not just part of the explanation
of penal change but is a significant element in penal change. Estrada et al explore the changes
relating to the control of drugs which Sweden has witnessed since the 1990s. The increases in
the control of drug offences, they argue, is the results of political dynamics once pursued by
centre-right parties, but now also adopted by the Social-Democrats. They examine the struc-
ture of police controls of drug offences and the extent to which these controls have focused on
different sociodemographic groups, finding that those with non-western ethnic identity, from
low-income households and poorer neighbourhoods were more likely to be tested for drug use.
Levchak et al also explore the ways in which ethnicity affects contact with the criminal justice
system. Using state-level data from the United States, they find that increasing evangelical reli-
gious conservativism is associated with increased Black imprisonment rates. This is especially
the case if a state’s legislature is more politically conservative. However, as a state’s Black popu-
lation increases, this effect is moderated (and holds for both Black and non-Black men). These
findings underscore the importance of examining imprisonment rates by ethnicity, degrees of
religious and political conservatism, and perceived ‘racial threat’ when exploring imprisonment
in the United States.
 INTERROGATING CRIME, POLITICS AND INSECURITY  •  1075

Staying with the issue of imprisonment, Annison and Condry examine the politics of crime
‘from below’. Drawing on in-depth interviews with families of indeterminate-sentenced pris-
oners, they seek to understand families’ experiences of their relative’s imprisonment under the
discredited English Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, situating these within
broader structural trends. Lee et al explore what for many readers will be a novel outcome; a
right-wing media election campaign which failed to ignite. For decades, many have assumed
(1) that media outlets tended to favour populist, right-wing positions on crime, and (2) tended
to be electorally successful. Using a case study from Melbourne, Australia, Lee et al show how

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/5/1069/6702088 by guest on 21 September 2022

members of the public ‘fought back’ against some of the claims made by right-wing politicians
during a recent election. Atilies Osoria and Rojas offer an analysis of the history and mechanisms
behind the social harms generated by the coal industry in Puerto Rico. Writing from a decolo-
nial and global south perspective, their paper shows how crimes and harms transcend national
boundaries. Finally, Nunn and Tepe-Belfrage note that whilst criminologists have engaged with
writing on political economy, there has been less interest in criminology from those working in
international political economy (IPE). However, an emerging literature within IPE, focusing on
discipline and ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’ provides an opportunity for IPE scholars to engage
with the criminological literature.
We hope that you find the following essays as interesting to read as we did to edit.
Stephen Farrall and Emily Gray*
*Stephen Farrall, University of Nottingham, University Park Campus, Nottingham NG7 2RD,
United Kingdom; stephen.farrall@nottingham.ac.uk; Emily Gray, The Department of Criminology,
University of Derby, Kedleston Rd, Derby DE22 1GB, United Kingdom

ACKNOWLEDGE MEN TS
This special issue of the British Journal of Criminology follows from two streams of panels on the
topic of crime and politics held at the American Society of Criminology and European Society
of Criminology conferences in the fall of 2019. We would like to close this Introduction by
thanking all those who gave papers during the above streams, who contributed to this collection,
and who undertook the reviewing for it. A special word of thanks is due to Eammon Carrabine
and Ruth Williams for their assistance with the production of this special issue.

REFERENCES
Barker, V. (2009), The Politics of Imprisonment. New York: OUP.
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, D. B. (1993), Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Beckett, K. (1997), Making Crime Pay. New York: OUP.
Bell, E. (2011), Criminal Justice and Neo-Liberalism. London: Palgrave.
Blyth, M. (2002), Great Transformations. Cambridge: CUP.
Carrington, K., Hogg, R. and Sozzo, M. (2016) ‘Southern Criminology’, The British Journal of Criminology,
56: 1–20
Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J. (2007), The Penal System, 4/e, London: Sage.
Connell, R. W. (2007), Southern Theory: Social Science and the Global Dynamics of Knowledge. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
De Grigori, A. (2006), Re-Thinking the Political Economy of Punishment. London: Routledge.
Enns, P. (2016), Incarceration Nation. Cambridge University Press.
Farrall, S., Gray, E., Jennings, W. and Hay, C. (2016), ‘Thatcherite Ideology, Housing Tenure, and Crime:
The Socio-Spatial Consequences of the Right to Buy for Domestic Property Crime’, British Journal of
Criminology, 56: 1235–52.
1076  •  The British Journal of Criminology, 2022, Vol. 62, No. 5

Farrall, S., Gray, E. and Jones, P. (2019), Council House Sales, Homelessness and Contact with the Criminal
Justice System, Geoforum, 107: 188–98.
Farrall, S., Gray, E. and Jones, P. M. (2020a), ‘The Role of Radical Economic Restructuring in Truancy from
School and Engagement in Crime’, British Journal of Criminology, 60: 118–140.
Farrall, S., Hay, C. and Gray, E. (2020b), Exploring Political Legacies, SPERI Pivot Series. London: Palgrave.
Garland, D. (2001), The Culture of Control. Oxford: OUP.
George, A. L. (1979), ‘Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured Focused
Comparison’, in P. G. Lauren ed., Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy. New York:
Free Press.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/5/1069/6702088 by guest on 21 September 2022

Gray, E., Grasso, M., Farrall, S., Jennings, W. and Hay, C. (2019), ‘Political Socialization, Worry about Crime
and Antisocial Behaviour: An Analysis of Age, Period and Cohort Effects’, British Journal of Criminology,
59: 435–60.
Hall, S. (1979), ‘The Great Moving Right show’, Marxist Today, 1979: 14–20.
Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B. (1978), Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and
Law. Macmillan.
Jennings, W., Gray, E., Farrall, S. and Hay, C. (2017), ‘Penal Populism and the Public Thermostat: Crime,
Public Punitiveness and Public Policy’, Governance, 30: 463–81.
Lacey, N. (2008), The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Cambridge: CUP.
Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. (1992), Implementing Thatcherite Policies. Milton Keynes: Open Univ Press.
McVie, S., Norris, P. and Pillinger, R. (2020), ‘Increasing Inequality in Experience of Victimization During
the Crime Drop: Analysing Patterns of Victimization in Scotland from 1993 to 2014-15’, British Journal
of Criminology, 60: 782–802.
Miller, L. (2016), The Myth of Mob Rule. Oxford University Press.
Pierson, P. (2004), Politics in Time. Princeton University Press.
Rock, P. (2005), ‘Chronocentrism and British Criminology’, British Journal of Sociology, 56: 473–791.
Rodríguez-Menés, J. and López-Riba, J. M. (2020), ‘The Impact of the 2008 Economic Crisis on
Imprisonment in Europe’. European Journal of Criminology. 17: 845–76.
Simon, J. (2007), Governing Through Crime. Oxford: OUP.
Taylor, I., Walton, P. and Young, J. (1973), The New Criminology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Tonry, M. (2004), Punishment and Politics. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Wacquant, L. (2009), Punishing the Poor. London: Duke Univ Press.
Young, J. (1999), The Exclusive Society. London: Sage.