Decentralization, Labeling Theory, and Order-Maintenance Policing

Introduction to Decentralization and Labeling Theory

Decentralization refers to the dispersion of power from a central authority to existing local and regional authorities. The central authority delegates its functions and powers to these subordinate bodies. Labeling theory helps explain why people may engage in deviant behaviors. For instance, an individual who associates with thieves might receive the label of being a thief, and may then begin incorporating that behavior into his daily activities.

Blomberg and Lucken assert that labeling theory helps justify decentralization in its core concepts. The social domestic ills that the government could not accommodate prompted the redistribution of national resources to local authorities (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010). In this context, the distribution of resources represents one meaning of decentralization, while the domestic ills are understood through the lens of labeling theory. This implies that the contexts of labeling theory — which help illustrate the meaning of crime in society — triggered governments to adopt decentralization. Blomberg asserts that the government became entrenched in a "war of mentality" against domestic social ills, and that the only remedy was the massive mobilization of national resources to local authorities.

Local authorities are better positioned to deal with labeled youth because there is a recognized need to divert them from the formal system. The federal government cannot engage directly with offenders at the local level; it can only commit them to prisons and reformatories. Local authorities, by contrast, work to keep offenders out of those institutions (Blomberg & Lucken, 2010).

The single most important practice to emerge from decentralization is the improvement in the quality of decision-making within organizations. The decentralization process relieves top officials of the burden of making all decisions independently, freeing up valuable time that they can devote to activities with long-term benefits. Top officials are consequently able to solve more problems, with the assistance of subordinates at all levels, thereby improving the overall quality of decision-making.

The Most Important Practice from Decentralization

In the context of the federal government, decentralization enables sufficient security and rehabilitation activities to be established in local settings. Without it, the government would have little meaningful contact with citizens. Delegating power to local authorities is therefore essential to effectively counteracting crime.

The phrase "less not more" — the ideal behind decentralization — differs from Blomberg and Lucken's observed outcome of "not less — more" in an important way. While the former captures the goal of reducing negative effects in the community, Blomberg's account describes an increase in positive effects. For the original ideal, success is measured by a reduction in negative outcomes — less harm from more effort. For Blomberg, the actual result represents an increase in positive effects generated from less central effort — more benefit from less direct government intervention.

Less Not More vs. More Not Less

Blomberg argues that the government needed to assert less direct effort in order to achieve more security for society. A comparable example from another domain would be investing more accountability mechanisms to achieve less corruption.

The relationship between order-maintenance policing (OMP) and crime has become a central debate in the security field. While some researchers argue that a negative relationship exists between the two — meaning that more OMP leads to less crime — others contend that no clear relationship exists. Kelling and Sousa (2001) assert that there is a strong negative relationship between changes in violent crime rates and the practice of order-maintenance policing (Rosenfeld et al., 2011). They argue that the prevalence of OMP contributed to the reduction in violent crimes in New York City. Harcourt and Ludwig, however, counter that OMP does not relate to levels of violent crime, attributing the rise in violent offending primarily to the spread of crack cocaine (Rosenfeld et al., 2011).

Order-Maintenance Policing and Crime

Both groups of researchers appear to overlook important nuances. One key limitation of these studies is that they rely on the violent crime index as the sole outcome measure. This approach does not allow for the examination of differences across individual crime types in relation to OMP's impact, and it leads to an underestimation of OMP's effects. For instance, the underreporting of rape cases has allowed those cases to proliferate precisely because police involvement has been minimal in that area. Furthermore, changes in the way police record assaults have led to an increase in reported felonies that appear statistically independent of victimization rates (Rosenfeld et al., 2011). When individual crime types are examined with attention to victimization rate changes, OMP does appear to have a meaningful impact on crime.

Further complicating matters, ordinance-violation arrests are distinct from broader measures of OMP (Rosenfeld et al., 2011). Police have frequently omitted minor crimes — particularly breaches of public order such as littering — treating them as beneath the threshold of criminal misdemeanors. Even though such breaches may constitute violations of city ordinance codes, their consistent dismissal by police has led to their increase. The implication is that the rise in these minor offenses is itself a consequence of inadequate OMP enforcement, and that stepping up enforcement of minor disorder would reduce this type of offending. Strengthening order on public disorder violations would therefore serve to decrease the overall rate of such crimes.