Plural policing: a State-of-the-Art Review

• Date: 21 March 2016
• Published date: 21 March 2016
• Pages: 2-18
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-05-2015-0069
• Author: Dominique Boels,Antoinette Verhage
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice

STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW

Plural policing:

a State-of-the-Art Review

Dominique Boels and Antoinette Verhage

Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law,

Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to report on the systematic review on the topic of plural

policing. The authors aim to discuss the general characteristics of empirical research into plural

policing and describe the way in which police literature deals with the questions related to

plural policing.

Design/methodology/approach –A systematic review, including qualitative research, focused on

empirical research results.

Findings –First of all, plural policing has been subject of study in a diversity of contexts, using

multiple methods and treating very diverse research questions. Although the dangers of blurring

boundaries between policing actors is a focal issue in contemplative papers, empirical research on

plural policing does not focus on this issue but mentions it in the margins of the research results.

Research limitations/implications –Limitations are that the authors had to set a timeframe for the

systematic review and that not all research was accessible. Furthermore, the authors had to limit

the studies that could be included in this systematic review.

Social implications –One of the main research questions relates to the dangers of blurring

boundaries between multiple policing actors. This has important implications for citizens in their

relations and contacts with police actors (in terms of transparency, equality of rights and so on).

Originality/value –The paper gives a first insight into a domain that is written on extensively,

but less empirically studied and sheds light on the studies that have taken the topic of plural policing

as the focal point.

Keywords Plural policing, Empirical, Blurring boundaries, Core tasks, Dangers

Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction

The concept of plural policing has acquired a central position in the criminological

literature since the 1990s (Terpstra and van Stokkom, 2015). Although plural policing is

not a recent reality in policing ( Johnston, 1993), it can be described as a relatively recent

subject of research. Still, the term plural policing is defined in different manners and

several related terms are used for its meaning, which in its core refers to the presence of

multipleactors in policingactivities. This “pluralizationof policing”(Bayley and Shearing,

1996, p. 585) has taken place both within (e.g. community support officers in the UK) and

outside the public police (e.g. civilian policing, private policing) (Crawford, 2008). As such,

policing services are now delivered in the public, semi-public and private domain

(Terpstra and van Stokkom, 2015) by a complex of public and private bodies and

agencies, also referred to as the new security complex (Terpstra, 2010 in Terpstra et al.,

2013a), the policing complex (Hoogenboom, 1991), the police extended family ( Johnston,

2003; Johnston, 2005) or the mixed economy of policing (Crawford, 2013).

Policing: An International Journal

ofPolice Strategies & Management

Vol. 39 No. 1, 2016

pp. 2-18

©Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1363-951X

DOI 10.1108/PIJPSM-05-2015-0069

Received 30 May 2015

Revised 9 July 2015

Accepted 12 July 2015

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm

The authors would like to thank FWO Vlaanderen for funding this research and Kaat Goossens

for having carried out the literature search of publications in Dutch.

2

PIJPSM

39,1

Different views exist on the magnitude and nature of the (recent) development

towards plural policing, amongst other developments in policing systems ( Jones and

Newburn, 2006). Whereas some argue that policing systems underwent radical changes

and that these changes thus entail historic developments of different systems of

policing (e.g. Bayley and Shearing, 1996, p. 585), others propose that policing

developments are part of a long-term process of formalization of social control (e.g.

Jones and Newburn, 2002, p. 129). They thus question the degree to which

developments in policing should be interpreted as a sharp qualitative break with

policing in the past ( Jones and Newburn, 2002). Still others, however, state that

policing has always consisted of a varying balance between public, private and hybrid

elements ( Johnston, 1993). The (recent) rise and growth of non-p ublic police agents in

policing can be seen as resulting from complex social, political and economic

circumstances and changes (Terpstra et al., 2013a). One frequently mentioned factor is

that, as a consequence of constraints on public police expenditures, other forms of

provisions have expanded to fill a gap that the police are unable to fill themselves

(Crawford, 2008; Jones and Newburn, 2006; Terpstra et al., 2013a). Addi tionally, some

authors point to the increased demand of the public for security (Crawford, 2008; Jones

and Newburn, 2006; Terpstra et al., 2013a), for which the state (in terms of the public

police) cannot provide for on its own. A more structural factor relates to broader shifts in

the structure and nature of late modern societies, which have created a set of

circumstances in which plural policing proliferates ( Jones and Newburn, 2006). In this

respect, Crawford (2008) refers to the neo-liberal inspired dispersal of responsibilities for

crime control within and beyond the state. Finally, changes in urban economy and space

are also reported to have influenced pluralization (Crawford, 2008; Terpstra et al., 2013a).

2. Plural policing defined

The pluralization of policing implies an increasing disconnection between the public

police and policing (Bayley and Shearing, 1996; Loader, 2000; Terpstra an d

van Stokkom, 2015). Consequently, this pluralization also implies a shift away from

a state-centred policing framework. This shift away –and the resulting changing

position of the government in relation to policing (Terpstra et al., 2013a) –is also found

in notions related to plural policing such as networked governance (Crawford, 2006)

and security governance (Johnston and Shearing, 2003 in Crawford, 2008). For the

purposes of this paper, we follow Loader’s (2000, pp. 323-324) definition of plural

policing:

What we might call a shift from police to policing has seen the sovereign state –hitherto

consideredfocal to both provision and accountability in thisfield –reconfigured as but one node

of a broader, more diverse network of power. Sure enough, this network continues to encompass

the direct provision and supervision of policing by institutions of national and local government.

But it now also extends –as we shall see –to private policing forms secured through

government; to transnational policing arrangements taking place above government; to markets

in policing and security services unfolding beyond government; and to policing activities

engaged in by citizens below government. We inhabit a world of plural, networked policing.

Adhering to this definition implies that we focus on policing activities, carried out by a

multiplicity of actors, each on their own initiative and steered and controlled by their

specific (or at least different) authorities. This then excludes examples of citizen

participation and partnerships, as they are carried out on demand of the police and

under police oversight.

3

Plural policing