Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Stephen Farrall
Chapter
Part of the Critical Criminological Perspectives book series (CCRP)

Abstract

The Chapter concludes the book, arguing that the previous theories put forward to explain the crime drop are (typically) mono-causal, focusing on one causal variable. The account which I have presented acts as a corrective to this position; suggesting that a number of processes, not least of all political decision making, brought about the dramatic increases in crime in the 1980s and the punitive response to it in the 1980s.

Keywords

Crime drop Crime trends 1980s New Right Criminal justice policies 

References

  1. Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Crawford, A. (2009). Situating crime prevention policies in comparative perspective. In A. Crawford (Ed.), Crime prevention policies in comparative perspective (pp. 1–37). Cullomption: Willan.Google Scholar
  3. Farrell, G., Tilley, N., & Tseloni, A. (2014). Why the crime drop? In M. Tonry (Ed.), Why crime rates fall and why they don’t (pp. 421–490). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hall, P. (2003). Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative politics. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (pp. 373–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hope, T. (2009). The political evolution of situation crime prevention in England and Wales. In A. Crawford (Ed.), Crime prevention policies in comparative perspective (pp. 38–61). Cullomption: Willan.Google Scholar
  6. King, M. (1989). Social crime prevention a la Thatcher. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(4), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2015). Not just what, when (and how). In K. Thelen & J. Maloney (Eds.), Advances in comparative-historical analysis (pp. 97–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. (1992). Implementing Thatcherite policies. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. O’Malley, P. (1994). Neoliberal crime control: Political agendas and the future of crime prevention in Australia. In D. Chappell & P. Wilson (Eds.), The Australian criminal justice system. Sydney: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  10. Pitts, J. & Hope, T. (1997). The local politics of inclusion. Social Policy & Administration, 31(5): 37–58.Google Scholar
  11. Pratt, J. (2008). Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Skocpol, T. (2003). Doubly engaged social science. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 407–428). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tonry, M. (2014). Why crime rates are falling throughout the Western World. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice (Vol. 43, pp. 1–63). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Wyvekens, A. (2009). The evolving story of crime prevention in France. In A. Crawford (Ed.), Crime prevention policies in comparative perspective (pp. 110–129). Cullomption: Willan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations