Quantification = Economization? Numbers, Ratings and Rankings in the Prison Service of England and Wales

This paper uses the case of prison privatization in England and Wales to scrutinize what it means to “economize the social” through numbers. It argues that we ought to be careful not to equate quantification with economization. To uncover the multiple effects of economization and quantification brought about by new public management reforms and prison privatization, one needs to set presumed dichotomies between the public and the private aside and turn instead to the multiplicity of economizing practices (curtailing, marketizing, financializing) and their implication in different forms of quantification. Ironically, numbers and state contracts governing privately managed prisons also shielded these establishments from economization (e.g. budgetary savings requests); and it is the public prisons that have been exposed the most to measures of government austerity.

Why Do States Privatize their Prisons? The Unintended Consequences of Inmate Litigation

The United States has witnessed privatization of a variety of government functions over the last three decades. Media and politicians often attribute the decision to privatize to ideological commitments to small government and fiscal pressure. These claims are particularly notable in the context of prison privatization, where states and the federal government have employed private companies to operate and manage private correctional facilities. I argue that state prison privatization is not a function of simple ideological or economic considerations. Rather, prison privatization has been an unintended consequence of the administrative and legal costs associated with litigation brought by prisoners. I assemble an original database of prison privatization in the United States and demonstrate that the privatization of prisons is best predicted by the legal pressure on state corrections systems, rather than the ideological orientation of a state government.

Simplifying Reality: The Media’s Portrayal of the Private Prison Debate

Although the media gives considerable attention to prison privatization, there have been few assessments of how newspapers portray the debate about it and how that portrayal aligns with what is known empirically about private prisons. This study addresses this gap in the literature by undertaking a content analysis of newspaper articles ( N = 131) about private prisons and private Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, respectively. The results show that few news stories discuss the broad range of factors that scholars highlight as important aspects of the privatization debate. It is also uncommon for news reports, especially those that discuss private immigration facilities, to refer to empirical research or its importance. The implications of this limited portrayal of private facilities are discussed.

Prison Privatization: An Empirical Literature Review and Path Forward

A substantial body of literature has been devoted to examine the efficacy of prison privatization. Unfortunately, the empirical findings to date are equivocal regarding whether prison privatization fulfills its promises and our expectations of cost efficiency, prison quality, postrelease success, nonprofit prison privatization, system-wide improvement in corrections, local economic development, and determinants of privatizing prisons. Such inconclusive evidence may result from the shortcomings of past research, and thus there is a continuing need for more work using a wide range of data sources and research designs. This article conducts a review of empirical research, discusses conceptual and methodological problems in the literature, and offers guidance for future research. It may not only stimulate additional research but also inform public policy decision-making on prison privatization.

Contesting Market Rationality: Discursive Struggles over Prison Privatization

Market rationality suffuses many areas of modern criminal justice. Prison privatization is one area in which market rationality is particularly salient. This paper presents a case study of how market rationality was deployed in public discourse on prison privatization. It answers four questions: (1) Who shaped public discourse on prison privatization?, (2) How frequently were market-rational themes invoked in the public discourse?, (3) Who employed (and who avoided) market-rational themes in the discourse?, and (4) Why did rates of market-rational discourse change over time? To answer these questions, the paper analyzes public discourse in four major American newspapers from 1985 to 2008. It employs a series of descriptive statistics and regression analyses, as well as an underutilized method--formal decomposition analysis. The research contributes to historical knowledge of the development of prison privatization; methodological techniques for analyzing textual data; and theoretical understanding of how public actors engage in discursive struggles over the meaning of criminal justice policies.