Conflicting institutional logics in the control of crime and disorder: The double strategy of administrative and criminal law

Abstract

The management of crime and disorder is increasingly based not only on criminal law, but also on administrative law. This paper deals with the question of how this double strategy can be understood from the perspective of institutional logics. This analysis is based upon a study in the Netherlands about the use of administrative powers in relation to criminal law. Special attention is paid to the relations between local government and the police. The study concentrates on three different administrative powers: the area ban, the closure of premises, and the power to refuse or revoke subsidies and permits if there is a risk that these may facilitate criminal activities. The study shows that the two logics may conflict, but also that new combinations of logics are created. These may create new tensions that result, in particular, from the dominance of criminal law over the administrative logic.

We Will Always Be Better Than a Spreadsheet

“…According to Lounsbury and Boxenbaum (2013, p. 4), there is a "growing recognition that conflicting and overlapping pressures stemming from multiple institutional logics create interpretive and strategic ambiguity for organizational leaders and participants…". How sense making and identity construction are processes related to the integration of multiple institutional logics in organizational practice in the police has been theorized by , Salet and Terpstra (2022) and Wathne (2019). Interpretive and strategic ambiguity may be a source of stress and conflict, but different logics may also create room for new action and change (Wathne & Solberg, 2021).…”