民主警务改革如何失败?从法律与发展的角度看变革与抵制的体制进程

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Julia Maia Goldani
{"title":"民主警务改革如何失败?从法律与发展的角度看变革与抵制的体制进程","authors":"Julia Maia Goldani","doi":"10.1515/ldr-2024-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Democratic police reform (DPR) is a type of institutional reform that aims to make polices compatible with democratic political regimes. Though distinct approaches have been attempted in distinct contextual circumstances, promoting DPR has proven remarkably difficult. Successful cases are hard to find; across the globe, DPR efforts have had unsatisfactory outcomes, amounting to little or no sustainable change in dysfunctional police forces. What explains this systematic failure of DPR? Existing research has focused on determining the sociopolitical circumstances and/or reform methods that correlate with positive or negative DPR outcomes. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding how DPR fails – that is, the processes through which the above-mentioned variables interact with the police’s organizational environments, rules, and resistance mechanisms to produce unsatisfactory outcomes/failed reform. This paper proposes that an analytical framework based on law and development scholarship can help police reform scholars address these gaps. To develop this argument, I review and discuss existing theorizations on DPR failure, demonstrating the potential contributions of a law and development perspective. I suggest that a framework based on this perspective nuances existing approaches by emphasizing the contentious processes surrounding reform enactment and implementation. Unpacking these processes can represent a new research agenda for police reform scholarship.","PeriodicalId":43146,"journal":{"name":"Law and Development Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Democratic Police Reforms Fail: A Law and Development Perspective on Institutional Processes of Change and Resistance\",\"authors\":\"Julia Maia Goldani\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ldr-2024-0017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Democratic police reform (DPR) is a type of institutional reform that aims to make polices compatible with democratic political regimes. Though distinct approaches have been attempted in distinct contextual circumstances, promoting DPR has proven remarkably difficult. Successful cases are hard to find; across the globe, DPR efforts have had unsatisfactory outcomes, amounting to little or no sustainable change in dysfunctional police forces. What explains this systematic failure of DPR? Existing research has focused on determining the sociopolitical circumstances and/or reform methods that correlate with positive or negative DPR outcomes. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding how DPR fails – that is, the processes through which the above-mentioned variables interact with the police’s organizational environments, rules, and resistance mechanisms to produce unsatisfactory outcomes/failed reform. This paper proposes that an analytical framework based on law and development scholarship can help police reform scholars address these gaps. To develop this argument, I review and discuss existing theorizations on DPR failure, demonstrating the potential contributions of a law and development perspective. I suggest that a framework based on this perspective nuances existing approaches by emphasizing the contentious processes surrounding reform enactment and implementation. Unpacking these processes can represent a new research agenda for police reform scholarship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Development Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Development Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2024-0017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Development Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2024-0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

民主警务改革(DPR)是一种机构改革,旨在使警务与民主政治体制相适应。尽管在不同的环境下尝试了不同的方法,但事实证明,推动民主警务改革非常困难。很难找到成功的案例;在全球范围内,DPR 的努力都没有取得令人满意的结果,在功能失调的警察部队中几乎或根本没有可持续的变革。是什么原因导致了警察复原方案的系统性失败?现有研究的重点是确定与警察改革取得积极或消极成果相关的社会政治环境和/或改革方法。然而,在有关警察改革如何失败的文献中还存在空白,即上述变量与警察组织环境、规则和抵制机制相互作用,产生令人不满意的结果/改革失败的过程。本文提出,基于法律与发展学术研究的分析框架可以帮助警察改革学者弥补这些不足。为了提出这一论点,我回顾并讨论了关于警察改革失败的现有理论,展示了法律与发展视角的潜在贡献。我认为,基于这一视角的框架通过强调围绕改革颁布和实施的有争议的过程,使现有方法变得更加细致。揭示这些过程可以成为警察改革学术研究的一个新的研究议程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Democratic Police Reforms Fail: A Law and Development Perspective on Institutional Processes of Change and Resistance
Democratic police reform (DPR) is a type of institutional reform that aims to make polices compatible with democratic political regimes. Though distinct approaches have been attempted in distinct contextual circumstances, promoting DPR has proven remarkably difficult. Successful cases are hard to find; across the globe, DPR efforts have had unsatisfactory outcomes, amounting to little or no sustainable change in dysfunctional police forces. What explains this systematic failure of DPR? Existing research has focused on determining the sociopolitical circumstances and/or reform methods that correlate with positive or negative DPR outcomes. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding how DPR fails – that is, the processes through which the above-mentioned variables interact with the police’s organizational environments, rules, and resistance mechanisms to produce unsatisfactory outcomes/failed reform. This paper proposes that an analytical framework based on law and development scholarship can help police reform scholars address these gaps. To develop this argument, I review and discuss existing theorizations on DPR failure, demonstrating the potential contributions of a law and development perspective. I suggest that a framework based on this perspective nuances existing approaches by emphasizing the contentious processes surrounding reform enactment and implementation. Unpacking these processes can represent a new research agenda for police reform scholarship.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Law and Development Review (LDR) is a top peer-reviewed journal in the field of law and development which explores the impact of law, legal frameworks, and institutions (LFIs) on development. LDR is distinguished from other law and economics journals in that its primary focus is the development aspects of international and domestic legal orders. The journal promotes global exchanges of views on law and development issues. LDR facilitates future global negotiations concerning the economic development of developing countries and sets out future directions for law and development studies. Many of the top scholars and practitioners in the field, including Professors David Trubek, Bhupinder Chimni, Michael Trebilcock, and Mitsuo Matsushita, have edited LDR issues and published articles in LDR. The journal seeks top-quality articles on law and development issues broadly, from the developing world as well as from the developed world. The changing economic conditions in recent decades render the law and development approach applicable to economic issues in developed countries as well as developing ones, and LDR accepts manuscripts on law and economic development issues concerning both categories of countries. LDR’s editorial board includes top scholars and professionals with diverse regional and academic backgrounds.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信