The Prison Industry: Carceral Expansion and Employment in U.S. Counties, 1969–1994^*

Abstract

Objectives. Despite the interest that social scientists have displayed in the rising rate of incarceration, little attention has been devoted to understanding its consequences for local areas. This is an important omission because prison construction has become a component of state and local economic development schemes. Indeed, there is a widespread belief that prison construction provides significant economic benefits to local areas. Methods. We analyze data on all existing and new prisons in the United States since 1960 and examine the impact of these prisons on the pace of growth (as measured by public, private, and total employment growth) in U.S. counties from 1969 to 1994. To our knowledge, our study is the first comprehensive and longitudinal assessment of the impact of prison construction on local areas. Results. We find no evidence that prison expansion has stimulated economic growth. In fact, we provide evidence that prison construction has impeded economic growth in rural counties that have been growing at a slow pace. Conclusion. Despite sharp ideological and intellectual differences, the critics and the advocates of the prison construction boom share the assumption that prisons can contribute to local growth, especially in hard‐pressed local areas. This belief flies in the face of mounting evidence that state and local initiatives rarely have a significant impact on growth; this belief is also contradicted by our analyses.

Invested in Prisons: Prison Expansion and Community Development in Canada

“…While prisons inevitably buy some of their supplies locally, many of the big contracts are handled centrally, so that bulk purchases are made on behalf of all the prisons in a state, or all those run by the same company. This usually means that local firms are forced to bid against much bigger operators to win contracts for a nearby prison (Hooks, Mosher, Rotolo & Lobao, 2004;Besser & Hanson, 2005;Courtright, Packard, Hannam & Brennan, 2010).…”

“…Eason (2010) and Hooks et al (2004) make a point of using county boundaries instead. But why not consider the regional or national implications of prison siting?…”

Siting Prisons, Sighting Communities: Geographies of Objection in a Planning Process

“…Moreover, a focus on NIMBYism obscures the social, cultural and economic context of development (Gilmore, 2007;Freudenberg and Pastor, 1992;Lake, 1993). Consideration of the wider context is crucial in the case of prison siting because of the rapid expansion of prison construction in the 1980s and 1990s and the investigation of this as a forced migration and containment of society's least desirable members (Davis, 2003;Hooks, Mosher, et al 2004;Wacquant, 2001). Ellis (2004) reaches past essentialism of local opposition to identify multiple 'discourses of objection' in his case study set in Ireland.…”

Pour une lecture institutionnaliste de l’acceptabilité locale d’un établissement carcéral

“…Le programme 13 200 initié en 2002 s'inscrit également dans cette logique. Si cette conception avant tout sociale se distingue de la conception anglo-saxonne, les arguments avancés par les élus locaux pour faire accepter une prison à leurs administrés demeurent toutefois ceux des retombées économiques attendues (Leroux & Rigamonti 2015 ;voir (Hooks et al 2004, Eason 2010. Dans certains cas, il semble au contraire contribuer à un ralentissement économique de zones déjà affectées par le déclin.…”

“…Dans certains cas, il semble au contraire contribuer à un ralentissement économique de zones déjà affectées par le déclin. Hooks et al (2004) ont par exemple réalisé une étude sur la période 1969-1994. Cette étude montre que les zones récemment dotées d'une prison ne sont pas caractérisées par un taux de croissance du PIB supérieur aux zones non dotées, y compris lorsqu'il s'agit de constructions en zones rurales.…”