The outsourcing of control: Alcohol law enforcement, private-sector governance and the evening and night-time economy

Abstract

England and Wales have experienced a decade of transformation concerning the legislative governance of urban public drinking spaces, yet the Evening and Night-time Economy (ENTE) retains its position at the top of ‘community safety’ agendas. This article reflects upon our research on alcohol law enforcement. We explore how some alcohol laws are ill-fit-for-purpose, whilst others are considered too difficult, or costly, to pursue. Subtle negotiations of compliance in which regulator and regulated form ‘partnerships’ are, at best, increasing trust and the flow of intelligence, and at worst, breeding complacency, inaction and regulatory capture. Gaps between headline statutory objectives and their delivery through policy implementation are being filled by corporate actors mobilising resources in line with central government predilections towards the outsourcing of control. In particular, the alcohol and hospitality industries promote ‘voluntary alternatives’ to the statutory roles and enforcement powers of city authorities and police. Replacing traditional law enforcement activity with self-regulation by alco-centric commercial interests is unlikely to assist attempts by public bodies, NGOs and other business sectors to engineer more diversified and inclusive urban nightscapes.

Policing nightlife areas: comparing youths’ trust in police, door staff and CCTV

“…Beyond this general observation, urban nightlife is consistently problematised in the media and public discourse as cause of crime and disorder, among other things because of (excessive) consumption of alcohol and drugs (Hadfield et al 2009, Shaw 2010. As a consequence, urban nightlife areas are often regarded spacetimes in need of (extensive) surveillance and policing, to which end we also observe a clear trend in the outsourcing of control in this specific context (Wadds 2013, Hadfield andMeasham 2015). At the same time, the literatures on urban nightlife emphasise that such 'social disorders' may elicit different experiences amongst different publics; were some consider urban nightlife areas as disorderly and dangerous and indeed in need of greater surveillance and policing, they are experienced as fun and adventurous by others (Hadfield et al 2009).…”

Late night environments: Bar “morphing” increases risky alcohol sales in on-premise outlets

“…Even in U.S. states where strong municipal regulation of alcohol sales is pre-empted by state law, cities may still leverage their land use planning and zoning capacities to exert more local control over the conditions of alcoholic beverage sales (Mosher, 1999). Another strategy, utilized in parts of the UK, is to impose a late-night levy to fund additional police and other city services (Hadfield & Measham, 2015). A successful multi-pronged prevention strategy should reflect the local social ecologies of on-premise outlets and include a complaint-driven system to respond to problems around outlets; a mechanism for communities and responsible business partners to jointly address problems around outlets; and community regulations on establishment operations, including business hours and beverage server training.…”

Drug policing assemblages: Repressive drug policies and the zonal banning of drug users in Denmark’s club land

“…Among the most important is the emergence of local coalitions between public authorities, venue owners and bouncers. Within these networks public and private actors are expected to collaborate and take responsibility for nightlife safety (Hadfield et al, 2009;Hadfield, & Measham, 2015;van Liempt, 2015;Søgaard, Houborg, & Tutenges, 2016). Recent studies have also argued that spatial bans, such as private club bans (Hobbs et al, 2003;Room, 2012) and police-issued (zonal) banning orders, have gained prominence in the regulation of unruly drinkers (Hadfield et al, 2009;Palmer, & Warren, 2014).…”

“…Furthermore, in some western cities, police-issued zonal bans are supplemented by collective 'private zonal bans', like the British Pubwatch scheme (Room, 2012). Such private zonal bans should not be seen as being opposed to public measures, but rather as part of an effort to outsource nightlife control (Hadfield, & Measham, 2015). In such outsourcing, state actors often play a key role in facilitating 'voluntary' collaboration between licensees to construct collective private bans through coordinated use of civil laws against trespassing (Room, 2012).…”