This paper uses recent developments in crowd psychology as the basis for developing new guidelines for public order policing. Argues that the classical view of all crowd members as being inherently irrational and suggestible, and therefore potentially violent, is both wrong and potentially dangerous. It can lead to policing strategies that respond to the violence of some in the crowd by clamping down on all members, and therefore lead all members to perceive the police as hostile and illegitimate. In such conditions, even those who were initially opposed to violence may come to side with more conflictual crowd members and hence contribute to an escalation in the level and scope of collective conflict. This paper argues that police officers need to concentrate on understanding the collective identities, priorities and intentions of different groups in the crowd and give the same priority to facilitating the lawful intentions of some groups as to controlling the unlawful intentions of others.

Articles You do not currently have access to this article. Download all figures Much p ublic order p olicing is still based on the assump tion that crowds are inherently irrational and dangerous. We argue that this ap p roach is both

This paper fits into the SIDE perspective (Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995; Postmes, Spears, Lea, & Reicher, 2000), which emphasises the importance of integrating the cognitive and strategic dimensions of group processes. Our study examines the decisions made by senior police officers during a simulation exercise of a crowd event. The analysis shows, firstly, that officers are deeply concerned about their accountability to a variety of audiences, both internal and external to the police force. Second, these different audiences pressure them to act in different, and sometimes contradictory, ways. What counts, then, is the overall balance between accountability concerns. Third, this balance - and, with it, police perceptions and decisions - alters in the course of an event. More specifically, with escalating conflict, the balance of accountability concerns moves increasingly in the direction of undifferentiated intervention against crowd members. In discussion, we consider both the theoretical implications of this analysis for research on group processes (in particular the importance of accountability issues once one moves beyond the laboratory and deals with groups that have a past and future and in which membership is more than simply an act of choice) and the practical implications in terms of crowd policing.

This paper reports a study of public order policing during a major 'anti-capitalist' riot. Officers were observed in the control room at New Scotland Yard throughout the event, and the two senior commanders were interviewed. The analysis demonstrates both the importance and the complexity of accountability concerns in determining police decisions. Officers are simultaneously accountable to multiple audiences who place different and sometimes contradictory demands upon them. Moreover officers in different positions may be subject to different accountability concerns. These lead to different action preferences that can create intra-organizational conflict. For instance, senior commanders were reluctant to use tactics that the general public and other external audiences might view as escalating the conflict or endangering the safety of protestors. In contrast, junior officers were less concerned with external audiences and supported these tactics as necessary to protect police safety. The theoretical significance of these findings is framed in terms of the SIDE model.

Purpose -The aim of this paper is to theoretically model and empirically analyze determinants of competitiveness of Brazilian manufacturing firms. Going beyond traditional manufacturing management literature, it integrates firm-, inter-firm, and institutional level theoretical arguments to explain manufacturing competitiveness in emerging economy environments. Design/methodology/approach -The model investigates the influence of firm-, inter-firm, and institutional level factors on the competitiveness of individual companies. The authors surveyed 182 firms, and interviewed a representative sub sample of 15 general managers. The survey and interview questions covered practices at the three theoretical levels, as well as firm performance. In a subsequent step, the authors used this data to statistically model the theory framework through a structural equation system. Findings -The paper finds that institutional level support, in the form of stronger participation in institutional organizations, enhances the effectiveness of inter-firm links. Moreover, this institutional support also provides firms with information and other resources that foster the development of superior intra-firm practices and inter-firm relationships. In sum, the combination of inter-firm and institutional associations lead to stronger performance.Research limitations/implications -The model and findings cannot be generalized across other institutional environments (e.g. developed economies). Moreover, the interplay between horizontal and vertical relationships must be studied further. Last but not least, causality must be better established.