Suchergebnisse

The forms of government and social relations that increasingly characterize contemporary society are giving rise to new ways of thinking about crime and crime control. In particular it is argued that although the discipline of criminology is currently well established in institutional terms, the intellectual tools of the discipline are of diminishing relevance to the social world that is now emerging. The article describes the major developmental trends in government policy as involving a shift from a welfare state, governed by Keynesian techniques of demand management to a new form of regulatory state, premised upon a neo-liberal combination of market competition, privatized institutions, and decentred, at-a-distance forms of state regulation. These new styles of governance are premised upon a recognition of new social forces and mentalities, particularly of the globalizing logic of risk management, and they will increasingly reconfigure the social and political fields in ways that have consequences for the policing and control of crime. Criminology's traditional focus upon street crimes and the institutions of police, courts and prisons may be decreasingly relevant to the new harms, risks and mechanisms of control that are emerging today. The innovative work of 'regulatory state scholars' such as Clifford Shearing is identified as pushing criminology in new directions that confound the discipline's traditional boundaries but which give it more leverage in the attempt to understand and respond to the control problems of the end of the century. The possibilities for restorative justice in the new context are also discussed, as are other methods for combating insecurity, and both are linked to the importance of developing forms of local knowledge that are informed by a sense of the global development context. It is argued that the Keynesian state has been replaced by a new regulatory state that is a more Hayekian response to a risk society. Clifford Shearing is identified as a criminological theorist who has come to terms with these developments, especially in his collaborations with Phillip Stenning, David Bayley, Tony Doob and his colleagues at the Community Peace Foundation in Cape Town. Shearing et al. are forging a new paradigm (that incorporates the restorative justice paradigm) which might just transcend criminology and become something of general import to the social sciences.

Developing states with limited regulatory capacity might benefit from a responsive approach to regulation. Responsive regulation is a democratic ideal, incorporating notions of deliberative democracy and restorative justice. Responsive regulation conducted by regulatory networks of governmental and non-governmental actors allows for networking around capacity deficits. NGOs play a vital role in this kind of regulation. By utilizing NGOs and local social pressure, developing countries might develop a "regulatory society" model, bypassing the regulatory state. Where capacity remains limited, private bounty hunting (such as fees for successful private prosecutions) may become an appealing tool for achieving certain regulatory objectives.

What are the virtues of institutions we take for granted-universities, the study of the social sciences and humanities, and scholarship on professions such as law? What are the vices of the disciplinary structure of the social sciences, even in the law and society movement and criminology that started as interdisciplinary projects? Research on regulation within an interdisciplinary structure, the Regulatory Institutions Network, is used to illustrate the difficulties of attempts to change direction in the social sciences. The article advocates the creative destruction of disciplinary structures by organizing in tents that study institutionalization (rather than buildings that study categories of institutions). To keep pace with social change, pulling tents down and endlessly pegging out new ones is a path forward. A politics of defending universities and opposing the disciplines that have captured them does not mean advocacy of restructuring. If more interesting work issues from poorly funded tents than from disciplinary edifices, reformers can advance creative destruction.

The forms of government and social relations that increasingly characterize contemporary society are giving rise to new ways of thinking about crime and crime control. In particular it is argued that although the discipline of criminology is currently well established in institutional terms, the intellectual tools of the discipline are of diminishing relevance to the social world that is now emerging. The article describes the major developmental trends in government policy as involving a shift from a welfare state, governed by Keynesian techniques of demand management to a new form of regulatory state, premised upon a neo-liberal combination of market competition, privatized institutions, and decentred, at-a-distance forms of state regulation. These new styles of governance are premised upon a recognition of new social forces and mentalities, particularly of the globalizing logic of risk management, and they will increasingly reconfigure the social and political fields in ways that have consequences for the policing and control of crime. Criminology's traditional focus upon street crimes and the institutions of police, courts and prisons may be decreasingly relevant to the new harms, risks and mechanisms of control that are emerging today. The innovative work of 'regulatory state scholars' such as Clifford Shearing is identified as pushing criminology in new directions that confound the discipline's traditional boundaries but which give it more leverage in the attempt to understand and respond to the control problems of the end of the century. The possibilities for restorative justice in the new context are also discussed, as are other methods for combating insecurity, and both are linked to the importance of developing forms of local knowledge that are informed by a sense of the global development context. It is argued that the Keynesian state has been replaced by a new regulatory state that is a more Hayekian response to a risk society. Clifford Shearing is identified as a criminological theorist who has come to terms with these developments, especially in his collaborations with Phillip Stenning, David Bayley, Tony Doob and his colleagues at the Community Peace Foundation in Cape Town. Shearing et al. are forging a new paradigm (that incorporates the restorative justice paradigm) which might just transcend criminology and become something of general import to the social sciences.

'In this sprawling and ambitious book John Braithwaite successfully manages to link the contemporary dynamics of macro political economy to the dynamics of citizen engagement and organisational activism at the micro intestacies of governance practices. Th

Developing states with limited regulatory capacity might benefit from a responsive approach to regulation. Responsive regulation is a democratic ideal, incorporating notions of deliberative democracy and restorative justice. Responsive regulation conducted by regulatory networks of governmental and non-governmental actors allows for networking around capacity deficits. NGOs play a vital role in this kind of regulation. By utilizing NGOs and local social pressure, developing countries might develop a "regulatory society" model, bypassing the regulatory state. Where capacity remains limited, private bounty hunting (such as fees for successful private prosecutions) may become an appealing tool for achieving certain regulatory objectives.

The Indonesian social system began to disintegrate in 1997. In the aftermath of social collapse, many forms of state crime, organized crime, terrorism, ethnic violence, religious violence, assassinations and other political violence escalated. An anomie theory interpretation is offered of this rise and the subsequent fall of a complex of serious crime problems. Security sector reintegration, reintegration of perpetrators and reconciliation (without truth) played important parts in enabling the rebuilding of institutions of security.

'In this sprawling and ambitious book John Braithwaite successfully manages to link the contemporary dynamics of macro political economy to the dynamics of citizen engagement and organisational activism at the micro intestacies of governance practices. Th

What are the virtues of institutions we take for granted-universities, the study of the social sciences and humanities, and scholarship on professions such as law? What are the vices of the disciplinary structure of the social sciences, even in the law and society movement and criminology that started as interdisciplinary projects? Research on regulation within an interdisciplinary structure, the Regulatory Institutions Network, is used to illustrate the difficulties of attempts to change direction in the social sciences. The article advocates the creative destruction of disciplinary structures by organizing in tents that study institutionalization (rather than buildings that study categories of institutions). To keep pace with social change, pulling tents down and endlessly pegging out new ones is a path forward. A politics of defending universities and opposing the disciplines that have captured them does not mean advocacy of restructuring. If more interesting work issues from poorly funded tents than from disciplinary edifices, reformers can advance creative destruction.

Responsive regulation is a general theory of how to steer the flow of events. This article seeks to understand when violence is and is not defensible as an enforcement escalation. It specifies limits on the claim of responsive regulatory theory that a tough enforcement peak to a regulatory pyramid helps drive regulation down to persuasion at the base of the pyramid. Those limits are about the counterproductive effects of violence at the peak of an enforcement pyramid. Erica Chenoweth and her colleagues show that nonviolent civilian resistance to regimes is twice as likely as armed struggle to succeed. Nonviolence complemented by a violent radical flank is less effective than disciplined nonviolence. This refutes the "benign big gun" aspect of responsive regulatory theory as a general theory of the regulation of social action. The theory implies that capacity to escalate to armed struggle at the peak of a regulatory pyramid should empower resistance. Can responsive theory be adapted to this empirical challenge? Can that adaptation show a productive path to an ethics of when to constrain escalation to violence as an option at the peak of all kinds of regulatory pyramids? Lessons are drawn from how Nelson Mandela's struggle against apartheid opened nonviolent paths to transformation without total renunciation of violence.