Policing Across the World

Issues for the Twenty-First Century

R.I. Mawby

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781857284898
• eBook ISBN: 9781135364571
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This wide-ranging text provides an overview of policing across different societies, and considers the issues facing the US and British police in a wider international context. The book is designed as a coherent introduction to the police.

PART 1

An Introduction to Comparative Policing

Introduction

While an international comparative element is central to many disciplines within the social sciences, it is only recently that it has become a significant feature of police studies. This raises at least three questions: just what are international studies of the police; why should an international perspective be so important; and if it is important why has it received so little attention until now?

David Bayley is unquestionably the pioneer of international police studies. In chapter one he acknowledges the lack of interest among his US colleagues on comparative analysis and then argues persuasively that, in contrast, international studies are an essential part of any academic discipline, including criminal justice and policing. He identifies four major benefits of cross-national study: extending knowledge of alternative possibilities; developing more powerful insights into human behaviour; increasing the likelihood of successful reform; and gaining perspectives on ourselves as human beings.

The enthusiasm with which Bayley pursues his mission is evident and it is indeed arguable that he understates the difficulties involved in international research. Mawby's chapter identifies four problems that regularly arise; first the availability of valid, reliable and detailed data; second, the fact that definitions vary between countries in ways that are not always easily identified and controlled; third is the practical ‘impossibility of becoming an expert on everywhere’; finally the basis on which to compare and categorize is often complex. Before this, however, Mawby distinguishes between practitioners and policy-makers and academics in their contribution to international analysis and in the latter case identifies six approaches to the subject. Broadly these fall into three groups: those that consider policing across a range of societies, whether focusing on similarities, differences or both; those that concern international or multinational agencies or what Bayley terms ‘transnational processes’; and those that focus on particular issues in policing and address them comparatively.

Parts 2 and 3 of this book focus on two of these. In Part 2 policing in a range of developed and developing societies is considered. Then in Part 3 a number of key issues in policing are addressed from a comparative perspective.

CHAPTER 1

Policing: the World Stage

DAVID H. BAYLEY

Introduction

The comparative study of the police is viewed as an exotic frill in the professional study of criminal justice. It is a marginal enterprise thought to be difficult, if not impossible, to do and yielding little of value. This invidious position stems from the fact that ‘comparative’ has been made synonymous in academic circles with ‘foreign’. Foreign experience is not considered central to any discipline I know, with the possible exception of history. Thus the major academic disciplines have sub-sections entitled comparative economics, comparative sociology, comparative political science, and now comparative criminal justice, all devoted to the study of things abroad. Doubts about the usefulness of foreign study arise from the fact that international differences are perceived to be so great as to bear no relation to one's own national or local experience. ‘You can't compare those countries,’ one frequently hears, ‘they're too different.’ So comparative study is dismissed as an excuse for international travel; a luxury that serious social scientists leave to dilettantes.

The purpose of this chapter is to show that these views about comparative study, in this case about the police, are the result of muddled thinking. Comparative study is thoroughly mainstream in any significant intellectual way; it can indeed be done successfully, and there are substantial reasons for doing so.

The Centrality of Comparison

The association of ‘comparison’ with ‘foreign’ creates the impression that comparative study is a choice that social science has. One may be mainstream and noncomparative or idiosyncratic and comparative. This is nonsense. All science is comparative in the sense of depending upon analysis of multiple cases. Science is the systematic observation of many instances of a phenomenon. In western intellectual life, comparative study hasn't been problematic since Francis Bacon (1561–1626). The comparative study of criminal justice institutions is neither epistemologically nor methodologically pathbreaking. To call the international study of any social phenomenon ‘comparative’ marginalizes the concept of comparison and confuses understanding of what is needed for scientific inquiry.

The comparative, meaning foreign, study of criminal justice raises no difficulties in principle from the scientific study of anything. It is not inherently more difficult to study police forces on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean than on both sides of the Hudson River or more difficult across the Belgium–France border than the Texas–Arkansas border. Large bodies of water are not a more serious bar to comparative study than small ones. Nor are international boundaries more so than intrastate boundaries. Yet comparing the police of Los Angeles and New York City or of Kent and Northumbria seems entirely natural, while comparing Kent with New York City or Bombay with Sydney is regarded as peculiar and problematic.

‘Comparative study’ is a misnomer. Because all science is comparative, ‘comparative’ should not be used to denote a subfield of any discipline. Instead, it would be more accurate and intelligent to refer to the international study of social phenomenon. What distinguishes the various ‘comparative’ subfields is not comparison but political geography, that is, whether the cases to be analyzed occur within a single country or several.

Some may object to ‘international’ as the right substitute for ‘comparative’ because ‘international’ can refer to processes that occur within several nation-states or processes that are undertaken by nation-states or supranational institutions across international boundaries. With respect to police, for example, would ‘international policing’ cover the study of police forces in several nations or activities of the FBI internationally, or the growth of collaboration among police forces in Europe, or even UN Peacekeeping in Bosnia? In other disciplines, ‘comparative studies’ has meant the former, with ‘international studies’ referring to the study of transnational processes.

If one must distinguish research by the geopolitical location of the cases studied, then my preference is to talk about studies being international (or cross-national), referring to analysis of instances from different countries, and transnational, referring to activities which cross borders. It would make sense to have courses designed as either ‘international’ or ‘transnational’ criminal justice, and to have corresponding sections of scholarly professional organizations. This is much better than lumping both together clumsily into the category of ‘comparative’.

Part of the reluctance to study criminal justice, or anything else, internationally arises out of the perception that differences among phenomena are so great that analysis is impossible. Anyone who lectures about international criminal justice has had the frustrating experience of someone in the audience rising to ask, ‘How can you compare Japan and the United States? They are so different.’ The assumption seems to be that national boundaries impose discontinuities in human experience, qualitative differences, that make it impossible to understand what is going on, let alone to learn something that might be useful at home. There are indeed differences in human experience across national boundaries. But so there are across the boundaries of any social unit – families, neighbourhoods, cities, provinces, and regions. The degree of difference is precisely the point. If we were all alike, then social science could rely on single case-studies. Whether differences are so great as to bar informative analysis is a matter that can only be determined by looking. To argue against international study because differences may be beyond our understanding assumes a conclusion that can only be proven by undertaking the very sort of study that is being questioned. Maybe some beings are beyond our ken, like the Klingons of Star Trek, but we will never know until we make the effort to find out.

This argument against international study is not only intellectually silly, it is disturbing morally because it elevates parochialism to the level of scientific principle. It assumes without examination that we are unique, unlike anyone else, certainly unlike foreigners. This conceit is sadly universal. Social science must firmly resist this sort of us–them chauvinism. It is unfortunate that a willingness to challenge this conceit even among social scientists is considered a dubious activity. The point is that international comparative study in social science raises no new epistemological or methodological problems. Whether broadening the scope of study can be useful intellectually as well as in terms of policy cannot be predicted in advance. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Science may fail, but we won't know until we try. This is as true of the international study of criminal justice as it is of any systematic empirical inquiry into human behaviour.

Although there are no reasons in principle against undertaking cross-national studies of criminal justice, there are certainly practical ones. The most obvious are language, access, and expense. Once again, however, the degree to which such conditions are limiting cannot be determined in advance. They depend on the nature of the topic to be studied, the venue chosen for study, and the methodology of research. One should not assume that such barriers are insurmountable, although in some places they will be, or even that they are greater than similar obstacles at home. Colloquial language skills, for example, are not needed in all research. A great deal of useful research can be done from statistical sources or from material readily translated. Foreign collaborators can serve as interpreters as well as informants. Being ‘one of us’ is not essential to all research, nor is it necessarily easier to achieve at home. It may be easier for a white American to do research on the police in Britain than on the police of Washington, DC. Similarly, access may sometimes be easier to obtain abroad than at home, even in the area of policing. Foreign scholars are less threatening politically because they come and go; they do not stay around to teach, write, and give interviews. Moreover, it is flattering to be studied by a foreigner, who may also be easier to influence than a local scholar. Expense surely does rise the farther one goes to study, except in that dwindling number of countries where the cost of living is actually lower than at home. Altogether, language, access, and cost are generally greater obstacles to research abroad than at home, but they vary case by case. Some may wonder why I don't mention expertise, in the sense of knowledge about local history and circumstances, as an additional practical impediment to foreign study. It certainly can be. Taking on new countries multiplies the background work that must be done, a problem that does not generally arise when increasing the size of domestic samples. For each new country, one has to do a cram course in history, politics, law, economics, social structure, and culture – all matters that are common knowledge for people raised locally. At the same time, there are some advantages to being able to look at things uninstructed by common opinion. I have often argued that international colloquia featuring a variety of national case-studies are done by the wrong people. Invariably, local nationals are asked to do the case-study of their own country. It might be more insightful instead if foreigners did the local case-study, on the argument that they might see things that locals miss, things that are so commonly experienced as to be unremarkable. While not everyone has de Tocqueville's gifts for quick and insightful study of a foreign country, his example should be followed more often than it is. Furthermore, the amount of local knowledge that is needed to understand something is itself an empirical question. While some is undoubtedly needed, it is not necessary to ‘go native’. It depends once again on the question asked, the place studied, and the methodology adopted. However, because the advantages of not having local knowledge are unpredictable, I am not suggesting that one be deliberately ignorant, simply that lifelong immersion is not necessary.

The Benefits of Comparison

Having established that international study of criminal justice institutions may encounter difficulties of practice but none of principle, is it worth doing? Are there benefits to expanding the generality of cases covered, especially over international borders? In my opinion, there are four substantial benefits from cross-national study of criminal justice. They are (1) extending knowledge of alternative possibilities; (2) developing more powerful insights into human behaviour; (3) increasing the likelihood of successful reform; and (4) gaining perspective on ourselves as human beings. I shall discuss each of these with particular reference to policing.

(1) Extending knowledge of possibilities

There is a tendency to assume that the way things are is the way things must be. More exactly, that what one has experienced is the way things must be. The fact is that there are all sorts of variations in the way criminal justice is organized and conducted. Without international study, it is impossible to know whether local practice is in the mainstream or is an outlier in some regard. There may be more possibilities than local experience would suggest. In addition, without international study it is easy to believe that local practice is not only inevitable but best. International study may suggest better ways to build the criminal justice mousetrap. The 185 nation-states in the world constitute a vast living laboratory of naturally occurring experiments in criminal justice systems and policies. With respect to policing specifically, countries vary enormously in national structures, mechanisms for achieving accountability, weapons and the use of force, role of women, organization and training for crowd-control, dependence on technology, deployment of operational personnel, standards of recruitment, nature and length of training, levels of remuneration, public regard, acceptance of the rule of law, separation from the military, styles of management, relations among ranks, and morale. If thoughtfully analyzed, this wealth of variation in police structures and practices can be used by police forces when they confront a new problem or find that their customary policies are not working. Instead of reinventing the wheel, they can study the practices of other countries that have tried something different and determine whether these practices work better than what is being questioned at home. Unfortunately, few countries systematically canvass foreign police experience when grappling with local problems. Despite widespread operational interests in policing, the United States, for example, does very little to encourage the study of foreign police practices. It generally acts as if foreign practice was irrelevant, even though it freely recommends its own practices to other countries. The National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the federal Department of Justice, has expressly avoided funding foreign study, in part out of fear that the Congress will accuse it of ‘junketeering’. Ironically, junketeering is a matter about which the US Congress is expert. On the other hand, Japan systematically enquires about foreign practices and sends young officers abroad expressly for that purpose. Since the Meiji Restoration over a hundred years ago, Japan has studied foreign experience whenever a new problem arises or it perceives the need for reform. European countr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• List of Abbreviations
• Part 1 An Introduction to Comparative Policing
• Part 2 Police Systems Across the World
• Part 3 Policing Issues in International Perspective
• Index