常见原因?政策制定话语与监狱/福利权衡*

IF 4.1 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2020-08-11 DOI:10.1177/0032329220942080
Joshua Guetzkow
{"title":"常见原因?政策制定话语与监狱/福利权衡*","authors":"Joshua Guetzkow","doi":"10.1177/0032329220942080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article advances our understanding of the well-documented trade-off between welfare and prisons by analyzing US congressional hearings on welfare and criminal justice policies in two periods: the “Great Society” of 1961–67 and the “neoliberal” era of 1981–96. Comparing policymakers’ conceptions about the causes of poverty and crime, about poor and criminal populations, and about the proper role of government, the findings show that conceptions across policy domains are similar in each period and have changed in similar ways over time. These changes correspond to markedly different policy responses to poverty and crime in the two periods, favoring welfare over prisons in the earlier period and prisons over welfare in the later period. The article discusses the implications for an understanding of the punitive turn in public policies, for theories of social control, and for research on the role of ideas in policymaking.","PeriodicalId":47847,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Society","volume":"48 1","pages":"321 - 356"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0032329220942080","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Common Cause? Policymaking Discourse and the Prison/Welfare Trade-Off*\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Guetzkow\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0032329220942080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article advances our understanding of the well-documented trade-off between welfare and prisons by analyzing US congressional hearings on welfare and criminal justice policies in two periods: the “Great Society” of 1961–67 and the “neoliberal” era of 1981–96. Comparing policymakers’ conceptions about the causes of poverty and crime, about poor and criminal populations, and about the proper role of government, the findings show that conceptions across policy domains are similar in each period and have changed in similar ways over time. These changes correspond to markedly different policy responses to poverty and crime in the two periods, favoring welfare over prisons in the earlier period and prisons over welfare in the later period. The article discusses the implications for an understanding of the punitive turn in public policies, for theories of social control, and for research on the role of ideas in policymaking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics & Society\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"321 - 356\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0032329220942080\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329220942080\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329220942080","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文通过分析两个时期(1961-67年的“伟大社会”时期和1981-96年的“新自由主义”时期)美国国会关于福利和刑事司法政策的听证会,加深了我们对福利和监狱之间权衡的理解。通过比较政策制定者对贫困和犯罪的原因、贫困和犯罪人口以及政府的适当作用的看法,研究结果表明,各个政策领域的观点在每个时期都是相似的,并且随着时间的推移也以相似的方式发生了变化。这些变化对应于两个时期对贫困和犯罪的明显不同的政策反应,在早期倾向于福利而不是监狱,在后期倾向于监狱而不是福利。本文讨论了对理解公共政策中的惩罚性转向、对社会控制理论以及对思想在政策制定中的作用的研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Common Cause? Policymaking Discourse and the Prison/Welfare Trade-Off*
This article advances our understanding of the well-documented trade-off between welfare and prisons by analyzing US congressional hearings on welfare and criminal justice policies in two periods: the “Great Society” of 1961–67 and the “neoliberal” era of 1981–96. Comparing policymakers’ conceptions about the causes of poverty and crime, about poor and criminal populations, and about the proper role of government, the findings show that conceptions across policy domains are similar in each period and have changed in similar ways over time. These changes correspond to markedly different policy responses to poverty and crime in the two periods, favoring welfare over prisons in the earlier period and prisons over welfare in the later period. The article discusses the implications for an understanding of the punitive turn in public policies, for theories of social control, and for research on the role of ideas in policymaking.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Politics & Society
Politics & Society Multiple-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.
期刊最新文献
Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1