The legitimacy and accountability of polycentric regulatory regimes, particularly at the transnational level, has been severely criticized, and the search is on to find ways in which they can be enhanced. This paper argues that before developing even more proposals, we need to pay far greater attention to the dynamics of accountability and legitimacy relationships, and to how those in regulatory regimes respond to them. The article thus first seeks to develop a closer analysis of three key elements of legitimacy and accountability relationships which it suggests are central to these dynamics: The role of the institutional environment in the construction of legitimacy, the dialectical nature of accountability relationships, and the communicative structures through which accountability occurs and legitimacy is constructed. Second, the article explores how organizations in regulatory regimes respond, or are likely to respond, to multiple legitimacy and accountability claims, and how they themselves seek to build legitimacy in complex and dynamic situations. The arguments developed here are not normative: There is no ‘‘grand solution’’ proposed to the normative questions of when regulators should be considered legitimate or how to make them so. Rather, the article seeks to analyse the dynamics of legitimacy and accountability relationships as they occur in an attempt to build a more realistic foundation on which grander ‘‘how to’’ proposals can be built. For until we understand these dynamics, the grander, normative arguments risk being simply pipe dreams – diverting, but in the end making little difference.

/pdf/constructing-and-contesting-legitimacy-and-accountability-in-3ph8datw2v.pdf

Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes

Illegal leisure: the normalization of adolescent recreational drug use

The legitimacy and accountability of polycentric regulatory regimes, particularly at the transnational level, has been severely criticised, and the search is on to find ways in which they can be enhanced. This paper argues that before developing even more proposals, we need to pay far greater attention to the dynamics of accountability and legitimacy relationships, and to how regulators respond to them. The article thus seeks to develop first, a closer analysis of the significance of the institutional environment in the construction of legitimacy, the dialectical nature of accountability relationships, and the communicative structures through which accountability occurs and legitimacy is constructed. Secondly, it explores how regulators respond, or are likely to respond, to multiple legitimacy and accountability claims, and of how they themselves seek to build legitimacy in complex and dynamic situations. This analysis, as well as being of intrinsic interest, could be of use to those trying to design accountability relationships or seeking to build them on the ground. For until we understand the implications of the pressures for accountability and legitimacy, the 'how to' proposals which are proliferating risk being simply pipe dreams: diverting, but in the end making little difference.

/pdf/constructing-and-contesting-legitimacy-and-accountability-in-2dtflep0cv.pdf

Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes

The concept of globalization has gradually permeated criminology, but more so as applied to transnational organized crime, international terrorism and policing than in addressing processes of criminal justice reform. Based on a wide range of bibliographic and web resources, this article assesses the extent to which a combination of neo-liberal assaults on the social logics of the welfare state and public provision, widespread experimentation with restorative justice and the prospect of rehabilitation through mediation and widely ratified international directives, epitomized by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, have now made it possible to talk of a global juvenile/youth justice. Conversely it also reflects on how persistent national and local divergences, together with the contradictions of contemporary reform, may preclude any aspiration for the delivery of a universal and consensual product

/pdf/the-globalization-of-crime-control-the-case-of-youth-and-14x350kmrg.pdf

The globalization of crime control—the case of youth and juvenile justice: Neo-liberalism, policy convergence and international conventions

This research addresses affirmative and negative motivations for compliance with social and environmental regulations. Affirmative motivations emanate from good intentions and a sense of obligation to comply. Negative motivations arise from fears of the consequences of being found in violation of regulatory requirements. The relevance of these is examined for data concerning the motivations of homebuilders to comply with requirements of building codes. The findings highlight the importance of affirmative motivations for situations such as homebuilding for which regulation is better characterized as fulfillment of a social contract than solely as compliance with enforced directives. Regulatory scholars have turned attention in recent years from asking whether regulations are unreasonably designed and enforced to asking why individuals and firms comply with regulations in the first place. This change calls attention to the role of other factors than deterrent fears in motivating compliance with regulations. It also broadens thinking about regulation from the enforcement of directives to fulfillment of a social contract. This research adds to the understanding of compliance motivations and these differing regulatory perspectives. The prior studies reviewed in this article suggest that individuals and firms comply with regulations either because they fear detection of violations and subsequent punishment, feel a duty to comply, or feel social pressure to comply. These motivations can generally be categorized into those that are affirmative and those that are negative. Affirmative motivations emanate from good intentions and a sense of obligation to comply. Negative motivations arise from fears of the consequences of being found in violation of regulatory requirements. The line between the two sets of motivations is not always easy to draw because they interact in influencing compliance. Nonetheless, the distinction is useful in helping to draw a contrast between different ways of thinking about regulation and compliance. Clarifying the nature of these motivations and the factors that influence them is important for thinking about regulatory alternatives. Much of the existing literature on regulatory practices addresses the deterrent basis for regulatory compliance and thus addresses negative motivations (e.g., Burby & Paterson 1993; Gray & Scholz 1993; Helland 1998; May & Winter 1999). Yet, greater emphasis on quasi-voluntary compliance with regulations has been viewed by some regulatory scholars as an important basis for improving regulatory outcomes (e.g., Ayres & Braithwaite 1992; Gunningham & Grabosky 1998; Gunningham & Sinclair 2002; Haines 1997).1 A better understanding of affirmative motivations is important for figuring out how to strengthen such voluntary compliance. The distinction between affirmative and negative motivations also suggests a more fundamental difference in ways of thinking about regulation. Regulations are usually thought of as enforced directives for which compliance is compelled by enforcement practices and sanctions for violations. A different way of thinking about regulation that is developed in this article is thinking of it as a social contract for which compliance is based on a shared commitment to carry out the provisions of the contract. Much of that commitment rests on affirmative reasons for entering and adhering to the contract. The two sets of motivations are examined in this research for the regulation of building safety. A variety of characteristics of building regulation make this an exemplary case of the social contract perspective on regulation. The evidence presented here shows that both affirmative and negative motivations are at work in influencing homebuilders' compliance with regulatory provisions. The discussion that follows presents the different ways of thinking about regulation and compliance, expectations about how regulatory practices and other factors affect compliance motivations, the data and measures used in this research, and empirical findings concerning the variation in compliance motivations. …

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/1555112

Compliance Motivations: Affirmative and Negative Bases

Can criminologists throw any light on corporate accountability? How realistically can organizational responsibility before the law be compared with that of individuals?

The Criminology of the Corporation

This paper examines some emerging evidence in relation to the impact of recent organisational changes in the delivery of youth justice services, and the implementation of National Standards for you...

Still Children First? Developments in Youth Justice in Wales:

This article uses accounts of three murder trials of the 1950s to examine the role played in the criminal justice process by stereotyped and prejudicial attitudes towards women and people from ethnic minorities. All three defendants were executed although it is arguable that none of them should have been. Ruth Ellis's case highlights the gendered nature of criminal justice in the 1950s, especially in regard to domestic violence and the defence of provocation. Mahmood Mattan's case illustrates the kind of language and assumptions about race which could go unchallenged in the courtroom at that time. Finally, the account of the trial and execution of Styllou Christofi sees these two elements combined. While a significant proportion of the article is concerned with the historical record, comparisons are also drawn with some elements of modern understanding of gender and race in the criminal justice system.

Gender, Race and the Death Penalty: Lessons from Three 1950s Murder Trials

This article describes the quality of the partnerships between youth offending teams and substance misuse projects working with young offenders. It draws on local evaluations of 25 projects funded by the Youth Justice Board's Development Fund from 1999 to 2002. For the most part, the relationships were described in mainly positive terms but a number of areas of potential and actual conflict were identified, notably confidentiality, referral criteria and enforcement. The findings are compared with previous research on partnerships between criminal justice and voluntary agencies, which generally indicate similar advantages and tensions. To some extent, YOTs and projects were able to avoid some of the predictable tensions by careful liaison and planning. However, the speed of the tendering process and the practical complexities of setting up the projects at the same time as the YOTs themselves were coming into being made this difficult for some projects.

John Minkes

Papers

The Criminology of the Corporation

Still Children First? Developments in Youth Justice in Wales:

Gender, Race and the Death Penalty: Lessons from Three 1950s Murder Trials

Partnership in Working with Young Offenders with Substance Misuse Problems

Criminal Enterprise: Individuals, Organisations and Criminal Responsibility