Economic Ideologies in Relation to Crime - Literature review Example

Student Name Tutor Title: Economic ideologies in relation to crime Institution Date Economic ideologies in relation to crime Introduction Economic ideologies and principles have filtered through from the field of economics to social, cultural and political fields as they seek to influence decisions and choices made and seek answers to modern day social, economic, environmental and political challenges and issues as argued by (Prasad, 2006). The predominant economic ideologies are social democracy, radicals, communism, Keynesian and neo-liberalism. The economic ideologies represent broad differences in beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, choices, behavior and ideals. More often than not, individuals who associate with a particular economic ideology lets say social democracy, they act, react, reflect and argue out based on the principles fostered by the ideology of social democracy over time and place. Nevertheless, failure of the chosen economic ideology to be effective and adequate as previously anticipated can lead to the enthusiast of the ideology being in denial, exercising blame game or for those who are not afraid to be wrong, acknowledgement that their ideological framework may have been wrong, as demonstrated by US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, a die-hard neoliberal, who openly admitted before the United States Congress that failure to regulate as proposed by neo-liberalism was flawed and modern risk management fostered by the economic ideology was not only wrong but ineffective in present global environment (Rudd, 2009). Economic ideologies as earlier mentioned influences how people relate, associate, perceive, act and carry out their social responsibility. More importantly, they impact on policies touching on social, political and economic issues. This forms the basis of this report which seeks to analyze arguments highlighted in varied economic ideologies regarding crime thus, determining what constitutes a good policy response to crime. Literature Review Neo-liberalism is a market initiated approach to social, political and economic policy that emphasizes on the need for efficiency of the private sector in influencing political and economic precedence of the people and it facilitate free and open trade facilitated through abolition of government-implemented restrictions (Prasad, 2006). According to Reinner, (2005), neo-liberalism established roots in 1970s as economic challenges at the time were thought to be government initiated through state interference in commerce which led to mobilization and even political lobbying for anti-regulations. The underlying theory behind neo-liberalism is efficient markets theory which suggests capital market prices are totally informing which makes markets fully efficient and therefore there are no risks of asset-price bubbles and when they happen, markets can self-regulate eliminating the need for government interventions to safeguard markets against them (Prasad, 2006). Neo-liberalism demonizes the government and sees it as interference and instead advocates for individual self interest to take precedence. On the other hand, social democracy also referred to democratic socialism refers to an economic philosophy of the political left that emphasizes on the need to control capitalism and ensure the government is accountable in arbitrating in social, economic and political issues in order to ensure economic, social and financial sustainability (McKnight & Manne, 2010). Underpinning social democracy are liberty, social justice and equality. The ideology enthusiasts believe that equality and social justice encompasses economic fairness, social equality, cultural egalitarianism and equality in application of law. Present global challenges attributed to the neo-liberalism fundamentalism have led societies and global economies to adopt social democracy to help alleviate present problems and safeguard against future re-occurrence of the present. Social democracy borrows heavily from Keynesian ideology (McKnight & Manne, 2010). Keynesian ideology suggest that unproductive macroeconomic results are generated to some extent by the choices made by the private sector which necessitates the need for policy responses from the public sector, economic policies by the state and monetary policies by the Central Bank in order to steady the business cycle outputs (Gordon, 1990). (Gordon, 1990) notes that the approach promotes a mixed economy which consists of a state and public sector with considerable role to play and a major private sector. As highlighted in majority of the economic ideologies highlighted, the most prevalent point of contention among them is the role of the state in the political, economic and social arenas. In his article "Social Democracy and the Global Financial Crisis," (Rudd, 2009) argues that present predicament of social, political and financial institutions which are characterized by upheaval in terms of price volatility, rising costs of living, fragmentations of political systems and collapsing of economies are as a result of extreme capitalism fostered by neo-liberalistic ideologies and viewpoints. In relation to crime, social democrats such as (Rudd, K . 2009), (Manne, R 2010) and (McKnight, D. & Manne, R. 2010) argue that the root cause of social, political and financial dysfunctions are increased greed , capitalism and the free reign of individual self interest advocated and fostered by neo-liberalism. Based on democratic socialism, crime is orchestrated effectively when individuals have no moral, ethical and social responsibility towards others and instead they seek to meet their own gratifications and needs first (Freidman & Freidman, 2003). The authors argue that crime can only be effectively managed through social demo critic systems where individuals are not only under regulations but are accountable for their conduct and decisions. Melleuish, (2009) asserts that greed is not necessarily a bad thing since it is part of the human nature and in fact there are other human predispositions such as hunger for power and search for glory that are as harmful to civilized living as greed. The author indicates that the solution to problems caused by greed is to tame it and make it work for the good of the people. Roberts & McMahon, (2007) notes that neo-liberalism has spilled over to social, cultural and economic spheres but it has been associated with increasingly money-oriented and acquisitive ideals generated by unbridled national and global markets and emerging dysfunctions that have caused ethical, economic, social and political damage. Among ethical and social damage that I perceive to have occurred include crime. This is as a result of increased competition that causes inequality in wealth distribution and income generation that in turn compel individual to indulge in crime to meet their needs and wants and market economies which advocate egoism and lack of accountability to others where one can easily harm and steal from another (McKnight & Manne, 2010). According to (Roberts & McMahon, 2007), neo-liberalism causes social harm in as far as causing social inequality that culminates to poor health and environmental outcomes, social inconsistencies and social violence illustrated by rising security threats such as terrorism. This corresponds with sentiments made by (Reinner, R. 2005) where he indicates that crime is associated to particular patterns namely decreasing impact of institutions of society cohesion such as trade unions and housing associations, the declining presence of agents of social enforcements and inclusion of criminals into society. According to the author, historical patterns of crime closely coincide with the emergence and adoption neo-liberalistic ideas after the Second World War since the period between 1950s to 1980s saw rapid rise in the number of recorded crimes, 1980s to 1992 which saw explosion in crime and from the year 1992 to present showing falling rates of crime where for the latter, Reiner attributes to decreasing levels of long term unemployment. Majority of the social democratic authors indicate that deviation from regulations to open market fundamentalism, extreme greed and capitalism has generated social, economic and political crises affecting individuals, industries and nations, causing institutional, logical and ideological conflicts characterized by employment issues, social vices such as crime, deteriorating ethics and lack of individual accountability to others (Rudd, K . 2009). Such outcomes has generated questions in regards to how did the present situation ever came to be, what ideology facilitated it and what policies failed us and more importantly what is the way forward from here in terms of effective policies, systems and ideologies to implement (Freidman & Freidman, 2003). The evidence shown by social democrats and the acknowledgement by some of the known neo-liberals on the failure of neo-liberalism and the dysfunctions and damage it has caused on political, economic and social systems and institutions, leaves no doubt on what is failing the present policies not only on crime but on other fundamental issues such as environment, poverty eradication, social justice and equality, health, education and home ownership. In my own view, the coincidence between deteriorating financial, economic, social and political systems and structures with prosperity of neo-liberalism is too great to consider it as such (Alfred, 2009). There are notable elements associated with neo- liberalism which I perceive to contribute to ineffective crime policies and can be attributed to the rising rates of crime globally which includes rising rates of unemployment especially with occurrence of financial and global crises which are squarely blamed on neo-liberalism which has failed to safeguard against excessive financial capitalism due to the belief that markets can self –regulate as echoed by (Reinner, R. 2005). In addition, increased job and financial security as more workers are employed on contract terms, rising levels of social and economic inequalities where the rich getter richer and the poor poorer owing to lack of regulations to control unfair competition and increasingly individualistic society where individual interests are given the first priority. Enhanced culture of materialistic, consumerism, and unaccountable systems, unregulated distribution of technology of violence, ineffective social and political substitute to neo-liberal economy and attrition of moral means of achievement being favored and lacking accountability for others which enhance cruelty are linked to neo-liberalism and foster a climate favorable for crime as echoed by (Reinner, R. 2005). As highlighted by the authors advocating for social democracy, to quell present global upheaval, I see crime policies derived from social democracy as the most likely to be effective than neo-liberalistic policies has been on social issues. The main challenge for social democrats is to regulate capitalism and abolish unbridled market economy which has generated extreme greed that has corrupted contemporary social, economic and political structures, systems and institutions. This can be achieved through government interventions to develop and implement effectively regulated financial and economic systems which will positively influence social and political systems where the state is the regulator, financier, generator of public commodities and it is charged with counterbalancing unavoidable market inequalities by ensuring impartiality in its dealings (Buiter,. 2009). In so doing, social democracy will help create a balance between the public and private sector, generates stability in profits and wages and create equilibrium between the markets and the government, thus counterbalancing the negative effects of neo-liberalism and preventing social damages such as crime (Rudd, 2009). However, (Patel, 2009) argues that neo-liberalism provides an opportunity to develop a homo oeconomicus which he also refers to as the enterprise man who is able to not only be flexible and adaptable to changes in environmental variables, but also become a human capital and a manageable person who easily adapt to changes to generate an income stream. These are sentiments I partially agree with but are not enough to deliver the society from the adverse influence of neo-liberalism. More often than not, crimes do happen in specific prevailing situations which includes motives; where an offender has to form and have a motive to commit a crime, means; where the offender has to have the ability and the means to commit the offence which are presently influenced by social patterns and technology and opportunity; where an offender can only commit a crime unless he finds the right target (Henry & Lanier, 2001). In addition, label; where the offence has be labeled as such to ensure offenders have violated regulations and deficiency of regulations; where an offender is only able to commit a crime when they are not hindered by social regulations in terms of codes of ethics, courts or through individual conscience (Henry & Lanier, 2001). Now how does neo-liberalism interrelate with these specific situations that aid crimes to occur? One may ask. In regards to motives, the materialistic culture fostered by neo-liberalism drives individual aspirations to attain the highest possible heights where the authenticity of the means to acquire them are not given much thought and rising unemployment and social inequality provides enough motive for crime (McKnight & Manne, 2010). Regarding labeling, consumerism generated by neo-liberalism allows for crime reporting which can have a counter effect of causing crime waves while on the means, advancement in technology and globalization has made it easier for cyber crime by offering new spaces for new types of crimes such as fraud through the internet, identity -theft, invasion of privacy, drugs and human trafficking and black market among others (Rudd, 2009). In relation to opportunity, increased affluence caused by consumerism has generated obvious crime targets such as electronics and property while deficiency of regulations are illustrated by failing policing systems and through egocentrism permits people to disregard ethical regulations and prefer illegitimate means to acquire wealth hence crime as echoed by (Reinner, 2005). Conclusion Economic ideologies do not only influence economic systems and institutions, they spill over to impact on social and political systems, processes, structures and institutions. As argued in the report, neo-liberalism can be attributed to failing crime policies due to the favorable environment it generates for crime to succeed. The solution is to develop and implement policies based on social democracy which advocates for social equality, liberty and justice for all economically, before the law and politically. Bibliography Alfred, J 2009, "The Sovereign Consumer", in the Skeptical Economist: Revealing the Ethics inside Economics, Earthscan, London, pp 11-45 Buiter, W.H. 2009. Lessons from the global credit crisis for social democrats. Accessible from http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/uyl.pdf Freidman, M. & Freidman, R. 2003. "The Power of the Market", in Argyrous, G & Stilwell, F (eds.) Economics as a Social Science: Reading in Political Economy, 2nd edition, Pluto Press Australia, Sydney, pp 126-131 Gordon, R. J. 1990. “What Is New-Keynesian Economics?” Journal of Economic Literature 28, no. 3: 1115–1171. Henry, S. & Lanier, M. 2001. What is crime? Controversies over the nature of crime and what to do about it. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Manne, R 2010, Is neo-liberalism finished?, in Manne, R & McKnight, D (eds.), Goodbye to all that: On the failure of neo-liberalism and the urgency of change, Black Inc, Melbourne, pp 73-76 & 86-89 McKnight, D. & Manne, R. 2010. Goodbye to All That?: On the Failure of Neoliberalism and the Urgency of Change. Melbourne: Black Inc. Melleuish, G. 2009.Greed is great. , Institute for Public Affairs Reviews, Vol. 61, No 2, pp 23-24, viewed 24 June 2011 Patel, R. 2009. "Becoming Homo Economics", in The Value of Nothing, Black Inc, Melbourne, pp 25-4 Prasad, M. 2006. The Politics of Free Markets: The Rise of Neoliberal Economic Policies in Britain, France, Germany and the United States. University of Chicago Press. Reinner, R. 2005. Be tough on a crucial cause of crime- Neoliberals. The Guardian, Accessed on 18th Oct 2011 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/24/ukcrime.uk Roberts, R. & McMahon, W. 2007. Social justice and criminal justice. Harm and society, Accessed on 18th Oct 2011 from http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus408/socialjusticecriminaljusticeweb.pdf Rudd, K. 2009. The global financial crisis. The Monthly, Accessible on 18th Oct 2011 from http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-kevin-rudd-global-financial-crisis—1421 Rudd, K. 2009. "Social Democracy and the Global Financial Crisis", in Manne, R & McKnight, D (eds.) Goodbye to all that: On the failure of neo-liberalism and the urgency of change, Black Inc, Melbourne, pp 73-76 & 86-98 Read More