Asymmetric dynamics - How parties, partisan competition and fear of crime have shaped law and order policies in Western industrialized countries

Criminologists have argued that the Western world has witnessed a general trend towards harsher law and order policies. However, although imprisonment has increased and legislation has indeed become tougher in the US and the UK, a general trend in all Western countries has not (yet?) materialized. Instead, empirical data shows that law and order policies in Western democracies continue to differ markedly. In order to explain why some countries have harshened their policy stance while others have not, the interrelationship between political parties, partisan competition and public opinion has been discussed prominently. The role of parties in this context, however, has remained unclear. While some authors argue that political parties respond to the citizens’ feelings of insecurity and demands for more severe punishment (Roberts et al. 2003), others emphasize that political actors move first, adopt harsher policies for ideological or vote-seeking reasons and – in this way – affect public opinion (Beckett 1997). The paper addresses this nexus between political parties, public opinion and law and order policies by looking more closely at three cases. A thorough analysis of the law and order policies in Germany, the UK and France between 1994 and 2010 enables us to see how political actors from different parties have reacted to increasing fear of crime. Our analysis reveals that there is no direct link between public opinion and tougher policies. Instead, it seems that while strong feelings of insecurity can trigger an initial step towards harsher policies, the subsequent policy path is disconnected from the further development of public opinion. Oftentimes, public opinion towards law and order seems to behave cyclically, whereas policies do not run parallel but remain stable (and tougher than before) after an initial response to public opinion. We argue that this asymmetric relationship can be explained by party competition and misperceptions by political actors.