Skip to main content

The Rise of a More Punitive State: On the Attenuation of Norwegian Penal Exceptionalism in an Era of Welfare State Transformation

Abstract

While sociologists of punishment have been interested in the notion of Nordic penal exceptionalism, rapid changes are taking place in the penal policies of one of the members of the Nordic zone. Norway’s penal state is growing increasingly punitive, and penal exceptionalism appears to be on the wane, evidenced by a growing incarceration rate, increasingly punitive sentiments in the population, moral panics over street crime, raised sentencing levels, the forcible detention and extradition of asylum seekers, punitive drug policies, and the creation of segregated correctional facilities for stigmatized foreign offenders. Penal transformation should be understood as the outcome of symbolic contestation between politicians eager to present themselves as “tough on crime,” increasing differentiation of the social structure that has led to the declining fortunes of rehabilitationism, and a nascent neoliberalization of the welfare state. As a consequence, Europe’s penal landscape may be growing more homogeneous.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Drawing on Garland (2013), the notion of the penal state is used throughout as a neutral, “non-evaluative” label referring to the sprawling web of interconnected criminal justice policies and institutions that are tasked with punishing offenders. Unlike Garland, however, the term is used to denote both the “leadership elites” and the ground-level decisions made by the courts, prisons, parole boards, probation agencies, street-level bureaucrats, and related venues, chiefly because these institutions are of signal importance in shaping the texture of punishment as it is enacted, enforced, and experienced in a frequently dispersed, decentered, and agonistic manner (Goodman et al. 2014).

  2. 2.

    Punitive sentiment refers to the aggregate of public support for criminal justice policies that punish criminal offenders (Ramirez 2013). While actual policy output is the result of a complex interplay of agents, forces, and interests—which could be thought of as being the product of ongoing struggles between members of what Page (2011), drawing on Bourdieusian field theory, calls the “penal field”—public opinion plays at least a partial role in shaping criminal justice policies. Understanding the extent of punishment in a society therefore mandates paying close attention to how the public thinks about punishment, while bearing in mind that public opinion is in part an artefact constructed by the methods one uses to plumb the depths of popular sentiment (Hutton 2005), public opinion is itself subject to feedback loops in which policy outputs shape public opinion inputs, and policy output is itself not a one-to-one expression of public sentiment but the product of struggles between agents (see also Frost 2010).

  3. 3.

    However, there are a number of methodological issues that suggest that caution should be exercised in making assumptions about punitive sentiment on the basis of surveys and opinion polls. Balvig et al. (2015) suggest that Nordic public opinion on criminal justice issues appears to be less severe when additional information about hypothetical offenders and offenses is provided, and that the public is less punitive than judges when provided with “vignettes” about hypothetical crimes. What matters more than the real incidence of punitive sentiment may be the ways in which political elites appropriate and construct a representation of public sentiment concerning appropriate levels of punishment.

  4. 4.

    It should be noted that while sentencing levels have been raised for violent and sexual offenses, the most common decision made by public prosecutors in the case of sex crimes is that of dismissal.

  5. 5.

    These figures are extracted from the Correctional Services StatRes database, available online at http://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/statistikker/kriminal_statres. The operating expenditure figures have been re-calculated in 2013 NOK equivalents in order to adjust for inflation. Recalculated figures were produced using the Statistics Norway’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) calculator: https://www.ssb.no/en/priser-og-prisindekser/statistikker/kpi.

  6. 6.

    These calculations are based on figures from the World Prison Brief (2013) and the Norwegian Correctional Services (2014). In 2013, there were a total of 1176 prison sentences waiting to be fulfilled in the “sentencing line.” The average length of sentences was 234 days in 2013. Converting this into a rate of imprisonment per 100,000 persons would generate an added 14.73 inmates per 100,000 persons. A counter-charge could be made that the ceteris paribus assumption masks the fact that other societies might also have “sentencing lines” or their national equivalent. As with all comparative criminological statistics, caution should be the order of the day when drawing conclusions on the basis of divergent modes of categorization.

  7. 7.

    The actual contribution of drug crime to the prison population is probably higher. Persons who have committed multiple types of offenses only appear in the official statistics with offense category that carries the longest maximum sentence.

  8. 8.

    Crime victimization surveys are not regularly carried out in Norway. Instead one is forced to rely on police-recorded crime, which risks underreporting or skewing representations of the “real” incidence of crime (Walklate 2007: 58–66). Van Kesteren et al. (2000) suggest that Norway’s crime victimization has increased slightly between 1988 and 2003/2004, but the findings are based on two entirely different survey instruments: 1989 ICVS data and 2003–2004 EU ICS data. See also Falck et al. (2003) for a survey of crime trends between 1950 and 2000, suggesting that the number of reported offenses per 100,000 persons doubled between 1980 and 2000. Again, however, this may be more indicative of police strategies and reporting habits than the “real” incidence of crime.

  9. 9.

    Other data sources corroborate this tendency. Official crime statistics in Norway suggest that the number of murder victims remained stable and low throughout the 2000 s with 33 victims in 2004 and 29 victims in 2012. There was, however, a spike the preceding year, with 77 victims from the 22 July 2011 terrorist attacks alone, and in the following year, with 45 victims in 2013 (National Crime Investigation Service 2013: 2).

  10. 10.

    These findings are based on searches in the Retriever Database (http://www.retriever.no).

    Searches were confined to the Norwegian national press and employed the search term “robbery wave” (“ransbølge*”) with an asterisk appended to capture suffixes after the word stem.

  11. 11.

    Particularly important prison jobs were remunerated with an additional 24 kroner per day. Regulations governing prison inmate pay is outlined by the Norwegian Correctional Services in an annually renewed directive: http://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/getfile.php/2855696.823.fdxuwcvetf/KDI+rundskriv+1-2015.pdf.

  12. 12.

    Prisoners in Norway are paid some six times a greater amount (in nominal terms) compared with the minimum wage received by prisoners employed under the auspices of Her Majesty’s Prison Service in England and Wales.

  13. 13.

    The number of community sentences increased from 750 sentences in 2002–2427 sentences in 2012, while the sum total of unconditional prison sentences grew from 9041 sentences to 11,676 sentences in the same time interval, according to data from Statistics Norway (https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/selectout/ShowTable.asp?FileformatId=2&Queryfile=2015713231832455118502Reaksjon01&PLanguage=0&MainTable=Reaksjon01&potsize=240).

  14. 14.

    The concept of “dualization” has been used by political scientists to study the transformation of labor market regimes; it has been mobilized to describe the unfurling of a two-track system in labor protection, job quality, and employment stability in recent decades, as labor market segmentation arises between “insiders” in standard, protective, high-quality employment and “outsiders” in precarious, irregular, and atypical employment (see e.g. Thelen 2012). The concept can be applied to penological inquiries to capture the split between generous rehabilitationist policies, reserved for national “insiders,” and penal austerity, targeted towards non-citizen “outsiders.”

References

  1. Aas, K. F. (2013). The ordered and bordered society: Migration control, citizenship, and the northern penal state. In K. F. Aas & M. Bosworth (Eds.), The borders of punishment: Migration, citizenship, and social exclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Aftenposten. (2012). Vil ha B-fengsler for utlendinger, [Second-Class Prisons for Foreigners]. 18 September.

  3. Aftenposten. (2014a). Vil leie fengselsplasser i Nederland, [Renting Prison Beds in the Netherlands]. 8 September.

  4. Aftenposten. (2014b). Neste år blir det forbudt å tigge, [Next Year, A Ban on Begging]. 11 June.

  5. Allan, J. P., & Scruggs, L. (2004). Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies. American Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 496–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Balvig, F. (2005). When law and order returned to Denmark. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 5(2), 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Balvig, F., Gunnlaugsson, H., Jerre, K., Olaussen, L. P., & Tham, H. (2010). Den nordiske retsbevidsthedsundersøgelse, [The Nordic Sense of Justice Survey]. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Kriminalvidenskab, 97(3), 232–250.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Balvig, F., Gunnlaugsson, H., Jerre, K., Tham, H., & Kinnunen, A. (2015). The public sense of justice in Scandinavia: A study of attitudes towards punishments. European Journal of Criminology, 12(3), 342–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bangstad, S. (2011). The morality police are coming! Muslims in Norway’s media discourses. Anthropology Today, 27(5), 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bewley-Taylor, D. R. (2012). International drug control: Consensus fractured. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Bourdieu, P. (2014). On the state. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Central Bureau of Statistics of Norway. (1954). Statistics on treason and collaboration, 1940–1945. Norway: Central Bureau of Statistics of Norway.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dagsavisen. (2013). Ransbølgen fortsetter, [The Robbery Wave Continues], 29 November.

  14. De Giorgi, A. (2010). Immigration, post-Fordism, and less eligibility: A materialist critique of the criminalization of immigration across Europe. Punishment & Society, 12(2), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Engebrigtsen, A. (2012). Tiggerbander og kriminelle bakmenn eller fattige EU-borgere? Myter og realiteter om utenlandske tiggere i Oslo [Beggar Gangs and Criminal Masterminds or Empoverished EU Citizens? Myths and Realities Concerning Foreign Beggars in Oslo]. Norwegian Social Research.

  16. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Estrada, F., Pettersson, T., & Shannon, D. (2012). Crime and criminology in Sweden. European Journal of Criminology, 9(6), 668–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eurostat. (2010). Crime and criminal justice. Eurostat Statistics in Focus, 58/2010. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-10-058/EN/KS-SF-10-058-EN.PDF. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.

  19. Eurostat. (2012). Crime and criminal justice 20062009. Eurostat Statistics in Focus, 6/2012. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-006/EN/KS-SF-12-006-EN.PDF. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.

  20. Fagerberg, J., Cappelen, C., Mjøset, L., & Skarstein, R. (1990). The decline of social-democratic state capitalism in Norway. New Left Review, 181, 60–94.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Falck, S., von Hofer, H., & Storgaard, A. (2003). Nordic criminal statistics 19502000. Report 2003/3. Department of Criminology, Stockholm University.

  22. Fremskrittspartiet. (2011). Sandberg strammer inn, [Sandberg Tightening the Reins], Progress Party, 13 May. http://www.frp.no/Sandberg+strammer+inn.d25-TxlDK5S.ips. Accessed 1 Nov 2014.

  23. Frost, N. (2010). Beyond public opinion polls: Punitive public sentiment & criminal justice policy. Sociology Compass, 4(3), 156–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Garland, D. (2013). The 2012 Sutherland address: Penality and the penal state. Criminology, 51(3), 475–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Global Detention Project. (2010). Norway detention profile, Global Detention Project. http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/Norway_2010.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.

  27. Goodman, P., Page, J., & Phelps, M. (2014). The long struggle: An agonistic perspective on penal development. Theoretical Criminology,. doi:10.1177/1362480614547151.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Green, D. A. (2008). When children kill children: Penal populism and political culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Hansen, M. N. (2014). Self-made wealth or family wealth? Changes in intergenerational wealth mobility. Social Forces, 93(2), 457–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hilson, M. (2008). The Nordic model: Scandinavia Since 1945. Clerkenwell: Reaktion Books.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Husabø, E. J. (2009). Fighting terrorism through multilevel criminal legislation. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Husabø, E. J. (2013). Counterterrorism and the expansion of proactive police powers in the Nordic states. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 14(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hutchinson, S. (2006). Countering catastrophic criminology: reform, punishment and the modern liberal compromise. Critical Criminology, 8(4), 443–467.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hutton, N. (2005). Beyond populist punitiveness? Punishment & Society, 7(3), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnsrud, I. (2011). FrPs fengselsreform (mest for utlendinger): -Hard og simpel soning, [Progress Party’s Prison Reform (Mainly for Foreigners): Hard Time], Verdens Gang, 13 May.

  37. Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2006). Three strikes and you’re out: Exploring symbol and substance in American and British crime control policies. British Journal of Criminology, 46(5), 781–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kildal, N. (2001). Workfare tendencies in Scandinavian welfare policies. Geneva: International Labour Office.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2011). Explaining imprisonment in Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2012). Penal policies in the Nordic countries, 1960–2010. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 13(Supp. 1), 85–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lappi-Seppälä, T., & Tonry, M. (2011). Crime, criminal justice, and criminology in the Nordic countries. Crime and Justice, 40(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lian, O. S. (2003). Convergence or divergence? Reforming primary care in Norway and Britain. The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 305–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Megginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M. (2001). From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 321–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mill, J.S. ([1859] 2003). Utilitarianism and On Liberty. New York: Blackwell.

  45. Mudde, C. (2013). The 2012 Stein Rokkan lecture: Three decades of populist radical right parties in Western Europe: So what? European Journal of Political Research, 52(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mydske, P.K., Claes, D.H., & Lie, A. (2007). Nyliberalisme: ideer og virkelighet [Neoliberalism: Ideas and Reality]. Oslo: Oslo University Press.

  47. National Crime Investigation Service. (2013). Nasjonal drapsoversikt 2013, [National Murder Statistics 2013] Kripos. https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/lokale_vedlegg/kripos/Vedlegg_2398.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2014.

  48. National Police Directorate. (2010). Politiets bekjempelse av narkotikakriminalitet i perioden 2011 til 2015, [Police Crackdown on Drug Crimes, 2011–2015]. https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/lokale_vedlegg/politidirektoratet/Vedlegg_1138.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2015.

  49. Newburn, T. (2002). Tough on crime: Penal policy in England and Wales. Crime and Justice, 36, 425–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. (2012). Kongsvinger fengsel åpner for utlendinger, [Kongsvinger Prison Opens for Foreigners], 1 November. http://www.nrk.no/ho/fengsel-apner-for-utlendinger-1.8381185. Accessed 1 Nov 2014.

  51. Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. (2013). Fullt i norske fengsler - vil kjøpe soningsplasser i Sverige, [Norwegian Prisons Full: Plans to Rent Prison Beds in Sweden], 9 November. http://www.nrk.no/norge/vil-kjope-fengselsplasser-i-sverige-1.11407308. Accessed 1 Nov 2014.

  52. Norwegian Correctional Services. (2012). Personalstatistikk for Kriminalomsorgen 20072012. Kriminalomsorgens Sentrale Forvaltning.

  53. Norwegian Correctional Services. (2014). Kriminalomsorgens årsstatistikk 2013. Kriminalomsorgen Sentrale Forvaltning.

  54. Norwegian Ministry of Justice. (2010). Strengere straffer for vold og overgrep – vedtatt av Stortinget i dag, [Harsher Punishment for Violent and Sexual Offenses: Ratified by Parliament Today], 8 June. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dokumentarkiv/stoltenberg-ii/jd/Nyheter-og-pressemeldinger/pressemeldinger/2010/strengere-straffer-for-vold-og-overgrep-.html?id=607563. Accessed 1 Feb 2014.

  55. Norwegian Ministry of Justice. (2013a). Endringer i straffeloven 1902 og straffeloven 2005 mv. (forberedelse av terror m.m.). Det Kongelige Justis- og Beredskapsdepartement.

  56. Norwegian Ministry of Justice. (2013b). Justisministeren med strakstiltak mot ransbølgen, [Minister of Justice Presents Immediate Measures against Wave of Robberies], 18 November. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/jd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/20131/justisministeren-med-strakstiltak-mot-ra.html?id=745795. Accessed 1 Feb 2014.

  57. OECD. (2014a). OECD Economic Surveys: Norway 2014. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-nor-2014-en. Accessed 15 Dec 2014.

  58. OECD. (2014b). Income Distribution and Poverty, OECD StatExtracts. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=IDD. Accessed 1 Nov 2014.

  59. Olaussen, L.P. (2013). Hva synes folk om straffenivået? En empirisk undersøkelse [What Do People Think about Sentencing Levels? An Empirical Assessment] Novus.

  60. Page, J. (2011). The toughest beat: Politics, punishment, and the prison officers union in California. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Payne, B. K., & Gainey, R. G. (1998). A qualitative assessment of the pains experienced on electronic monitoring. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 42(2), 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pontusson, J. (1984). Behind and beyond social democracy in Sweden. New Left Review, 143, 69–96.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pontusson, J. (1987). Radicalization and retreat in Swedish social democracy. New Left Review, 161, 5–33.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Pratt, J. (2007). Penal populism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Pratt, J. (2008a). Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess. Part I: The nature and roots of Scandinavian exceptionalism. British Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Pratt, J. (2008b). Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess. Part II: Does Scandinavian exceptionalism have a future? British Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pratt, J., & Eriksson, A. (2013). Contrasts in punishment: An explanation of anglophone excess and Nordic exceptionalism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Przeworski, A. (1985). Capitalism and social democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  69. Ramirez, M. D. (2013). Punitive sentiment. Criminology, 51(2), 329–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Riaz, W. (2013). Nå er det forbudt å sove ute i byen, [Sleeping Outdoors in City No Longer Permitted], osloby.no, 16 May. http://www.osloby.no/nyheter/Na-er-det-forbudt-a-sove-ute-7203348.html. Accessed 1 Nov 2014.

  71. Sejersted, F. (2011). The age of social democracy: Norway and Sweden in the twentieth century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Statistics Norway. (2013a). Victimisation and Fear of Crime, Survey of Living Conditions 2012. http://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/statistikker/vold. Accessed 6 Dec 2014.

  73. Statistics Norway. (2013b). Lovbrudd anmeldt, etter lovbruddskategori, lovbruddsgruppe og type lovbrudd, [Reported Offenses by Category of Offense’]. https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/selectout/ShowTable.asp?FileformatId=2&Queryfile=201312915617182193452Anmeldt01&PLanguage=0&MainTable=Anmeldt01&potsize=40. Accessed 1 Nov 2014.

  74. Statistics Norway. (2014). Innvandrere etter innvandringsbakgrunn, 1 January 2014, [Number of Immigrants by Immigrant Background]. http://www.ssb.no/befolkning/statistikker/innvgrunn/aar/2014-09-04. Accessed 1 Nov 2014.

  75. Statistics Norway. (2015). Tabell 08484: Lovbrudd anmeldt, etter lovbrudsskategori, lovbrudsgruppe og type lovbrudd. https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?MainTable=Anmeldt01&KortNavnWeb=lovbrudda&PLanguage=0&checked=true. Accessed 15 June 2015.

  76. Storeng, N. (2013). Politimester slår alarm etter ransbølge i Oslo, [Chief of Police Sounds the Alarm after Oslo Robbery Wave], tv2.no. http://www.tv2.no/a/4144547. Accessed 1 Dec 2014.

  77. Tham, H. (2001). Law and order as a leftist project? The case of Sweden. Punishment & Society, 3(3), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Thelen, K. (2012). Varieties of capitalism: Trajectories of liberalization and the new politics of social solidarity. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Turner, R. (2008). Neo-liberal ideology: History, concepts and policies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ugelvik, T. (2013). Seeing like a welfare state: Immigration control, statecraft, and a prison with double vision. In K. F. Aas & M. Bosworth (Eds.), The borders of punishment: Migration, citizenship, and social exclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ugelvik, T., & Dullum, J. (Eds.). (2012). Penal exceptionalism? Nordic prison policy and practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Ugelvik, S., & Ugelvik, T. (2013). Immigration control in Ultima Thule: Detention and exclusion, Norwegian style. European Journal of Criminology, 10(6), 709–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. van Kesteren, J. (2009). Public attitudes and sentencing policies across the world. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(1–2), 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Vanhaelmeesch, D., Beken, T. V., & Vandevelde, S. (2014). Punishment at home: Offenders. Experiences with Electronic Monitoring’, European Journal of Criminology, 11(3), 273–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Wacquant, L. (1999). “Suitable enemies”: Foreigners and immigrants in the prisons of Europe. Punishment & Society, 1(2), 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Wacquant, L. (2008a). Ordering insecurity: Social polarization and the punitive upsurge. Radical Philosophy Review, 11(1), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Wacquant, L. (2008b). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Wacquant, L. (2009). Prisons of poverty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Wacquant, L. (2012). Three steps to a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Social Anthropology, 20(1), 66–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Walklate, S. (2007). Imagining the victim of crime. New York: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Walmsley, R. (2013). World Prison Population List (Tenth Edition). International Centre for Prison Studies. http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/prisonstudies.org/files/resources/downloads/wppl_10.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2014.

  92. Welch, M., & Schuster, L. (2005). Detention of asylum seekers in the US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy: A critical view of the globalizing culture of control. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 5(4), 331–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Wimmer, A. (1997). Explaining xenophobia and racism: A critical review of current research approaches. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 20(1), 17–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Zimring, F. (2006). The great American crime decline. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  95. Zylan, Y., & Soule, S. A. (2000). Ending welfare as we know It (again): Welfare state retrenchment, 1989–1995. Social Forces, 79(2), 623–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to participants at a Department of Criminology, Stockholm University workshop in February 2015 and members of the Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research (SIRUS) Qualitative Research Work Group for their sharp analytic comments on previous versions of the argument presented here. I am particularly indebted to Silje Andresen, William Bülow, Eivind Grip Fjær, Klara Hermansson, Willy Pedersen, Sveinung Sandberg, Henrik Tham, two anonymous reviewers, and the editor of Critical Criminology for their incisive and constructive remarks.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor L. Shammas.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shammas, V.L. The Rise of a More Punitive State: On the Attenuation of Norwegian Penal Exceptionalism in an Era of Welfare State Transformation. Crit Crim 24, 57–74 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-015-9296-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Welfare State
  • Incarceration Rate
  • Asylum Seeker
  • Prison Population
  • European Social Survey