Give and Take: The Bifurcation of Police Reform in Britain

Abstract

P olice reform is high on the agenda of many societies, both developed and developing. In the early years of the 21st century, police reform in Britain became a central feature of the Labour Government's strategy on crime, and what followed was a reform agenda that by any measure could be deemed 'radical'. This paper examines the contemporary agenda for police reform in Britain in terms of two paradoxical movements. On the one hand, at the strategic and policy levels, police reform has entailed the 'disempowerment' of the police sector, a loss of control and a diminution of authority over decision-making relating to policing. On the other hand, at the operational and 'street' levels, police reform has entailed the 'empowerment' of the police sector, a widening of police discretion and an enhancement of the authority of the police officer as a community actor. The article examines the processes underpinning this paradox and locates them firmly within the contradictions inherent in the politicisation of crime and policing and the critical status of the public police within the politicisation of crime.

Quo Vadis: A New Direction for Police Leadership Through Community Engagement?

“…A core feature of NPM was described by Osborne and Gaebler (1992) as a separation between 'steering' and 'rowing' in the delivery of services. In other words, central government provided strategic direction in terms of budget and policy (steering) while other agencies, including the police, were given responsibility for the delivery of services (rowing) (Reiner 2010;Savage 2007b;Golding and Savage 2008). This has been described as 'governing at a distance' resulting in central government being able to penetrate parts of policing that they had not previously been able to access or influence, such as the day to day operation of discretion (Reiner 2010;Savage 2007b).…”

“…In other words, central government provided strategic direction in terms of budget and policy (steering) while other agencies, including the police, were given responsibility for the delivery of services (rowing) (Reiner 2010;Savage 2007b;Golding and Savage 2008). This has been described as 'governing at a distance' resulting in central government being able to penetrate parts of policing that they had not previously been able to access or influence, such as the day to day operation of discretion (Reiner 2010;Savage 2007b). This type of 'power beyond the state' is a characteristic of political action being practised 'at a distance' (Miller and Rose 1990) and, perhaps more importantly, the government was able to exercise its authority over that most precious of commodities-resources, while vesting the responsibility for increases in resources on the police themselves through achieving performance targets.…”

“…The opportunity of allowing the community constable to become the community leader as posited by Alderson (1998) and social diagnostician (Savage 2007b) is achievable; however, it requires the development of a new service model that moves away from a reliance on enforcement and chasing detections. As Myhill and Quinton (2011) state 'given that enhanced trust and legitimacy is likely to encourage voluntary public cooperation and would have a largely preventive effect on crime, a 'service' model of policing could help forces to avoid the financial costs resulting from an approach based narrowly on deterrence and punishment'.…”

Justifying Coproduced Policeability: Restrained Creativity and New Modalities of (Dis)Agreements in the Swedish Police

“…Coproduction is said to enhance police capacity to adjust to a variety of policing demands (Savage, 2007) by improving police understanding of local conditions and of new potential combinations of practices and resources. Similarly, in keeping with research stressing that external networks boost organizational innovation, information sharing emerges as enabling the police to see new and creative solutions to complicated local circumstances (Schaefer Morbito, 2010;Stark, 2009;Uzzi, 1997).…”

“…Prime value is attached to loyalty and trust and to the importance of preserving social order (Boltanski & Thevénot, 2006). By exploring assumptions about the worth of local and stable police work, based on personal trust in collaboration with community actors, such domestic logic can be identified in research into, for example, community or neighborhood policing (Savage, 2007;Wood & Bradley, 2009). In the fifth logic, popular logic, the justifying principle is the ability to be granted credit and esteem in the opinion of others, and this logic is associated with practices supporting the value of being publicly acknowledged and recognized.…”