How useful an explanation is the concept of neoliberalism for the various prison crises observable across the Western world?

‘Neoliberalism’ was first coined by a group of scholars in the late 1930s who were seeking to revive classical liberalism, although the contemporary definition was to be popularised and practised in the 1980s by Thatcher and Reagan. These political leaders utilised neoliberalism in the West to increase economic development through free trade, deregulation, and privatisation.  In short, the American dream. The much-debated issue, however, is how large of a span the consequences of neoliberalism stretch. When reading the works of Adam Smith, one can understand the economical advances and perspectives of a concise monetary science. On the other hand, within the discipline of criminology, academics should acknowledge the importance of anthropological and social factors that are not acquainted with the numerical equation of neoliberalism (metaphorically speaking). Therefore, by discussing the theoretical neoliberal penalties thesis and the social phenomena of the war on drugs as well as post-Keynesian political scandals, it can be evidenced that; by applying economic policies to a humanitarian issue, neoliberalism has transformed prisoners into profits and the penal into the political.

To first understand the broader influences of neoliberalism; one must consider the criticisms of applying an economic principle to a social issue such as crime and punishment. Economically speaking at its core neoliberalism can be explained by the concept that ‘consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production’ (Adam Smith, 1776). Political neoliberalism aims to increase anomie and globalisation, reduce poverty and encourage efficient resource allocation through a zero-sum game mathematical representation.  This is best demonstrated within the Thatcher quote, ‘There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families’ (Margaret Thatcher, Woman’s Own, October 3, 1987). The Thatcher administration's right-wing agenda in areas like industrial relations and welfare state reform was nested inside a vision of self-sufficient citizens. This amounted to the traditional "night-watchman" state supplying a minimal support and disciplinary framework rather than a comprehensive safety net, let alone a framework for realising the obligations of solidarity and reciprocity inherent in a social democratic vision of citizenship. In the aftermath of the failure of Fordism and the reorganisation of the international economy during the 1970s oil crisis, the Thatcher administration in Britain adopted a deregulatory agenda similar to that of Reagan in the United States. Although neoliberalism positions itself as an ideology founded on the indisputable facts of modern economics it is not a scientific discipline, despite its scientific trappings; but rather the rigorous elaboration of a very specific social theory that has become so deeply embedded in Western thought that it has established itself as nothing more than common sense. The repercussions are seen in increased insecurity (financially as well as socially), which creates more incentives for criminality; and in increased political reliance on punishment as a weapon of social organisation as the state grows to rely more heavily, both literally and symbolically, on punishment. Thus, Neoliberalism by definition is an economic tool, however, there is an empirical argument within academia for the ideology to be analysed as a social paradox. So much so the Frankfurt School, a group of German philosophers and social theorists, dedicated their academic careers to the criticism of neoliberalism and highlighting the social impacts of such a principle. Names such as Adorno and Horkheimer argued that neoliberalism will inevitably result in dramatic inequality, further weakening of social safety systems and the prioritising of profits over human needs. Such theorists contended that neoliberalism aided the emergence of a culture of selfishness, materialism, and commodification, all of which can be evidenced in our society today. Thus, when applying neoliberalism to the various prison crises observable in the Western world, one could quickly dismiss Lacey’s claims of the relationship being too ‘abstract’ and consider Wacquant’s transnational political theories; one of which states that it is a  project carried out ‘by a new global ruling class in the making, composed of the heads and senior executives of transnational firms, high-ranking politicians, state managers and top officials of multinational organisations…’ (Wacquant 2009, pg306-7). When regarding this, the Neoliberal Penalties Thesis (NPL) attempts to illustrate how our punitive methods are simply a reflection of what society demands from its citizens.  It is significant to note that ‘NLP is not merely an effect or a specific result of neoliberalism, but a core defining feature’(Wacquant 2009a: pg 285-91; 306-307). As a result, the criminal is to be understood within a moral register and subject to an ‘anthropology’ of crime: exerting that neoliberalism is indeed a useful and functional explanation when observing the various prison crises across the Western world.

The first exemplar when arguing how useful of an explanation neoliberalism is for analysing the various prison crises, and perhaps a catalyst for the detrimental consequences upon our prisons, is the privatisation of prisons in the USA. This can be traced back to the 1980s when the country faced prison overpopulation; a direct consequence of government administrations delivering tough-on-crime measures leading to more arrests, longer sentences and tougher parole and probation laws. As a result, the prison population increased, and state-run institutions were overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded, leaving a gap in the ever-evolving free economic market. ‘Core Civic’, a dominating private prison corporation offered, along with other companies, to deliver a cost-effective and higher-quality service than government-run institutions. The first private prison facility opened in 1984; a significant year under Reagan's administration as he pushed for the neoliberal ideology of fewer government interventions and greater dependence on the private sector to supply public services. This theory was, and expected to, be carried over into the criminal justice system, with governments and private firms suggesting that the profit incentive could enhance efficiency and cut costs. Similarly, the private prison sector gained leverage through lobbying, campaign contributions, and smart alliances with legislators enabling them to influence public opinion and argue for tougher sentencing laws and stricter immigration regulations; resulting in even more individuals being imprisoned and the expansion of penal populism. The issues surface however when the link between neoliberalism and the privatisation of prisons is the fundamental principle of an economic theory, prioritising free market capitalism; essentially turning prisoners into profits. Within the novella Crime and Punishment, an essayist argued ‘that a society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens, but by how it treats its criminals’ (Dostoevsky, 1866). Thus, how should one view a society that was deemed to be using private prisons as a ‘figure of political technology’ (Foucault, 1977)?

Case in point, the black site of Guantanamo Bay, which was operated outside US law and outsourced to Cuba, illustrates the impact of neoliberalism policies enabling legal loopholes through military courts.  Opened in 2001 amongst the moral panic of the ‘war on terror’; Bush argued that the need to counter terrorism and keep people safe overrode the obligation to respect human rights. This allowed the  USA to maintain their traditional sense of nationalism that was simultaneously deteriorating through the neoliberal policies, through racialized orientalism within the detention camp. Guantanamo Bay acted as a symbol of torture, rendition and indefinite detention without charge or trial; a position that was defendable within the context of neoliberal racial social attitudes and the ongoing privatisation of state functions. In summary, ‘in a neoliberal capitalist environment, prohibitions and litigation alone cannot improve prison conditions’ (Guenther, 2017).  Neoliberalism created an incentive for states to utilise imprisonment as a way of profit despite a prison crisis now seemingly neglected.

Carrying this forward the rising prison population may arguably be influenced by the bio-political movement of the ‘war on drugs’. The war against drugs in the USA  began in the 1970s, under President Richard Nixon's administration. During this time, there was widespread concern about the use of illicit substances, especially among young people, and the repercussions for society. In response, the government implemented a number of neoliberal measures targeted at lowering drug consumption and drug-related crime. The criticisms are made apparent when analysing the key features of these new policies. For instance, the assumption that the market is the most effective method to allocate resources is a core characteristic of neoliberalism; this meant that, in the context of the drug war, the government has depended primarily on law enforcement authorities to combat drug manufacturing and distribution. As a result, the number of persons imprisoned for drug-related offences has increased significantly putting stress on the penal system. In truth, the dramatic increase in the number of US citizens imprisoned during the last four decades is impossible to overestimate. Decades of steady imprisonment rates ended abruptly in the mid-1970s, when the USA’s prison population grew from around 300,000 to 1.6 million inmates, and the incarceration rate increased from 100  to more than 500 per 100,000 (during the height of neoliberal policies). Moreover, individualism is yet another essential element of neoliberalism.  In the framework of the ‘war on drugs’, this has meant that drug users are frequently blamed for their addiction and are viewed as a problem that must be addressed by punishment rather than support and rehabilitation. Rather than offering access to therapy and support, drug users are frequently forced to manage alone, which can exacerbate their addiction and make their rehabilitation harder leading to criminalisation. Put simply the ‘war on drugs’ has not worked and has only emphasised the stress on the prison system, and appeared to have magnified the drug issues it was trying to diminish. Essentially, ‘Neoliberal ideologies and policies undermined regulatory approaches to drug control that had previously informed drug control regimes at the international and national levels, facilitating a shift in thinking about the causes and origins of the illicit drug economy and how to counter its growth’ (Edmondson, 2021).

When reading the works of Foucault, the relationship between the war on drugs and biopower is perhaps far too easily established; especially when understanding the contradictory actions of the 1970s and 1980s USA  administrations. Biopower is defined by the ways in which authoritative power operates through regulation and control of life processes, seen through the racial stereotyping and class divides aggravated by the ‘war on drugs’. ‘Through biopower, subjects that follow the norms of society can be made to live and be invested in but those categorised as 'abnormal' will be 'let to die’ (Foucault 1978; 144). When inspecting the CIA’s involvement in the Contra-cocaine trafficking scandal; Milton Friedman’s quote seems uncannily relevant,  ‘if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true" (Friedman, 1991).  Several CIA agents assisted in the trafficking of cocaine into the USA as part of their attempts to pay the Contras. The CIA helped Contra members who were known to be involved in drug trafficking, while other CIA officials were aware of drug smuggling operations but chose to ignore them. Profits from the drug trade were used to fund the Contras, and the USA government strategy at the time was to ignore drug trafficking in order to achieve its political goals. Similar incidents occurred in Bolivia and Panama, the latter involving Manuel Noriega, a known drug trafficker and de facto dictator of the nation who was supported by the USA because of the military  base stationed on the Panama Canal. Ultimately the CIA's involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking led to the country's high rate of imprisonment. The influx of cocaine into the USA throughout the 1980s caused a surge in drug-related crime, prompting the government to implement draconian drug laws mandating substantial prison sentences for drug offences. The tough-on-crime strategy resulted in a considerable rise in incarceration, particularly for nonviolent drug charges. This resulted in the phenomenon known as mass incarceration, with the USA having the world's highest imprisonment rate. Many argue that the drug war was utilised as a weapon to target and imprison minority groups, resulting in disproportionately high rates of imprisonment for oppressed groups. The CIA's participation in Contra cocaine trafficking is part of a wider context in which the government's neoliberal and biopolitical drug policies have had a substantial influence on the criminal justice system and contributed to the country's prison crisis.

Moving the focus onto the United Kingdom, one can attempt to understand the trend in neoliberal Thatcher policies, as well as austerity measures and the increasing prison population. The relationship between neoliberalism, the welfare state, and prison rates in the Western world is complex, but it can be summarised as follows; neoliberalism's emphasis on deregulation, privatisation, and individual responsibility has resulted in decreased government spending on social programmes, including the welfare state. As a result, people who formerly relied on government support are now alone, resulting in greater poverty and social inequality. This can cause a rise in crime and, as a result, increased imprisonment. Fewer  social safety nets can also contribute to greater imprisonment rates since so many individuals that would otherwise be eligible for social assistance, such as mental health or addiction treatment, find themselves within the criminal justice system. The steady decline of the UK's welfare system is easily noticeable. For example, in 2013, the government enacted the ‘bedroom tax’ which decreased the amount of housing aid people were eligible for  if they  had unoccupied bedrooms within their household. This has had a huge impact on low-income households, many of whom have been obliged to relocate or face financial hardship as a result. There have also been modifications to disability benefits as adjustments have made  it more difficult for individuals with impairments to obtain the assistance they require. For example, the introduction of Personal Independent Payment (PIP) in 2013 resulted in the reduction or elimination of benefits for many individuals that were disabled. Similarly, austerity measures implemented by the government in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis resulted in reduced resources for public services such as healthcare, education, and social care. This has severely impacted upon society's most vulnerable individuals, who rely on these programmes for assistance. Namely, the privatisation of services. The government has also embraced a privatisation programme in several sections of the welfare state, such as the National Health Service. The extent of the impact emerges when in the Prison Reform Trust report, published in 2017 ‘53% of the prisons population had claimed benefits before entering prison’. This apparent failure of the Government is also evidenced empirically; The University of Bristol undertook an investigation revealing correlations between the government's choices to decrease access to social programmes and an increase in crime in regions of deindustrialisation including locations that need 'levelling-up'. Researchers discovered through a large number of interviews that when individuals are imprisoned, they frequently present with extraordinarily complex health and social needs and rely on scarce prison healthcare resources that have not been expanded since 2006, despite the fact that the prison population has increased since that time. In one interview it was stated, ‘Police have mopped up as many people with mental health problems as they can. There is nowhere else for them to go. It actually costs more money because they are mopping up things that the other services should deal with’ (Participant 9, Policy Lead at a health and social care organisation), (Ismail, 2020). Unfortunately, inmates in prison have a 50% greater mortality rate than the general population, owing to the poor health of inmates and those involved with the criminal justice system relative to their same aged peers This is frequently caused or aggravated by early adverse childhood experiences (abuse, neglect, and trauma), and socioeconomic conditions (housing and employment issues). Neoliberalism has prevented the government from taking the opportunity to even attempt to break this cycle of disadvantage, by encouraging a higher prison population for an economic incentive. Hence once more, worsening the welfare state, neglecting the poor, and reducing the collapsing prison system simply into a dumping ground for those on the margins of society.

The final exemplar utilised when proving how useful an explanation of the concept of neoliberalism is for the various prison crises observable across the Western world is the recent controversy of HM Holloway. From 1852 to 2016, HM Holloway, often known as Holloway Prison, was a women's prison in London. Over its lengthy history, the institution became linked with the problems and difficulties that women jailed there experienced. HM Holloway was founded as a mixed prison, but in 1902, it was modified to serve solely as a women's prison. The institution was named after Elizabeth Fry, a social reformer who pioneered the notion of female imprisonment in the nineteenth century. However,  Holloway Prison soon had a reputation for being a rough and cruel facility where women were exposed to violent treatment and awful living circumstances. The previously mentioned insufficient medical attention was one of the most critical issues encountered by women in Holloway Prison. Numerous women were suffering from illnesses, injuries, and psychological disorders that went untreated. This was especially true for women who were expecting or had just given birth. The medical facilities at the prison were insufficient, and women were frequently forced to rely on their fellow convicts for assistance and treatment. The history of HM Holloway, as well as the experiences of women in prison, illustrate the need for increased understanding and action on criminal justice and gender equality concerns. Inmates continue to encounter several obstacles, ranging from insufficient medical treatment to a lack of access to education and training: at fault for neoliberal policies exacerbating the inequality of our society. According to a report released last year, ‘Over half the women in prison report having suffered domestic violence with 53% of women reporting having experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child and many women have dependent children – an estimated 17,000 children are affected by maternal imprisonment every year’ (Prison Reform Trust, 2022). Thus, in November 2015, the UK government announced that it would be closing HM Holloway and replacing it with smaller women's centres across the country. The decision to close the prison was made following concerns about the treatment of women in custody and the high levels of reoffending following release. After the closure of the prison, the land and buildings were sold to Peabody Trust, a Housing Association, for £82 million in 2019, with plans to develop the site into affordable housing and community facilities. As for the money from the sale of the prison, it is not clear where it went specifically, as the government's finances are complex, and the sale proceeds would have been part of a larger budget. However, it is likely that the money was used to fund various government programs and initiatives, as is the case with all government revenue rather than continuing with the progressive plan of opening smaller establishments. This indicates the prioritisation of financial windfalls over prisoner rights and rehabilitation, a key characteristic of the ideology of neoliberalism.

In closing the consequences of neoliberal politics becoming popularised in the Western world; have carried forward into the criminal justice system. When applying an economic policy to a humanitarian issue, one is able to identify the exacerbated crises within prisons, through a variety of examples, including ‘mass incarceration’. Neoliberalism has created an incentive for governments to imprison minority groups and those on the poverty line through monetary benefits, as the West becomes ever so more indebted to the hands of capitalism. Prisoners feel thus become profits, and the penal entangled with right-wing politics. Neoliberalism is therefore a useful explanation for the various prison crises observable across the Western world.

Bibliography

Andrew, J. (2007) ‘Prisons, the profit motive and other challenges to accountability’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(8), pp. 877–904. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2006.08.003.

Bristol, U. of (no date) After a decade of austerity, urgent changes are needed to improve prison services | PolicyBristol | University of Bristol. Available at: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/policybristol/policy-briefings/prison-funding-austerity/ (Accessed: 30 March 2023).

Brittany Edmoundson, Drug Control in the Age of Neoliberalism, Diplomatic History, Volume 45, Issue 5, November 2021, Pages 927–939, https://doi.org/10.1093/dh/dhab046

clarke, simon (1994) ‘THE NEOLIBERAL THEORY OF SOCIETY’. Available at: http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~syrbe/pubs/Neoliberalism.pdf.

douglas pond cummings, andrd (2012) ‘All Eyez on Me’:1 America’s War on Drugs and the Prison-Industrial Complex.

Foucault, Michel, 1926-1984. Discipline and Punish : the Birth of the Prison. New York :Pantheon Books, 1977.

Foucault, M. (1997) “The Ethics of the Concern of the Self as a Practice of Freedom” In: Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. New York: The New Press. 281-301.

"Friedman & Szasz On Liberty and Drugs".1991 Interview with Randy Paige on "America's Drug Forum", www.druglibrary.org.

Gordon, T. (2006) ‘Neoliberalism, Racism, and the War on Drugs in Canada’, Social Justice, 33(1 (103)), pp. 59–78. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29768352 (Accessed: 28 March 2023).

Guenther, L. (2017) ‘Prison Beds and Compensated Man-Days: The Spatio-Temporal Order of Carceral Neoliberalism’, Social Justice, 44(2-3 (148)), pp. 31–54. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26538381 (Accessed: 26 March 2023).

Ismail, N. (2020) ‘Deterioration, drift, distraction, and denial: How the politics of austerity challenges the resilience of prison health governance and delivery in England’, Health Policy, 124(12), pp. 1368–1378. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.09.004.

O’Malley, P. (2015) ‘Rethinking Neoliberal Penality’. Rochester, NY. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2644010.

Parliament (2018) ‘Government is failing its duty of care towards prisoners’. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/81/health-and-social-care-committee/news/104617/government-is-failing-its-duty-of-care-towards-prisoners/.

Prison privatization: a perspective on core - ProQuest (no date). Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/807532883?accountid=14182&parentSessionId=nOX4XapEcEyI%2B0IQFH6dOlpih%2FIlJ5EImsmsPVRD7XU%3D&pq-origsite=primo&forcedol=true (Accessed: 26 March 2023).

The War on Drugs and Prison Growth: Limited Importance, Limited Legislative Options Symposium: Drug Policy Reality and Reform

Pfaff, John F.

‘Women in prison’ (2022) Prison Reform Trust. Available at: https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/project/women-the-criminal-justice-system/ (Accessed: 5 April 2023).