Phil Hadfield

‘This town’s a different town today’ Policing and regulating the night-time economy

This article considers recent policing and regulatory responses to the night-time economy in England and Wales. Drawing upon the findings of a broader two-year qualitative investigation of local and national developments in alcohol policy, it identifies a dramatic acceleration of statutory activity, with 12 new or revised powers, and several more in prospect, introduced by the Labour Government within its first decade in office. Interview data and documentary sources are used to explore the degree to which the introduction of such powers, often accompanied by forceful rhetoric and high profile police action, has translated into a sustained expansion of control. Many of the new powers are spatially directed, as well as being focused upon the actions of distinct individuals or businesses, yet the willingness and capacity to apply powers to offending individuals in comparison to businesses is often variable and asymmetrical. The practice of negotiating order in the night-time economy is riddled with tensions and ambiguities that reflect the ad hoc nature and rapid escalation of the regulatory architecture. Night-time urban security governance is understood as the outcome of subtle organizational and interpersonal power-plays. Social orders, normative schemas and apportionments of blame thus arise as a byproduct of patterned (structural) relations.

The outsourcing of control: Alcohol law enforcement, private-sector governance and the evening and night-time economy

England and Wales have experienced a decade of transformation concerning the legislative governance of urban public drinking spaces, yet the Evening and Night-time Economy (ENTE) retains its position at the top of ‘community safety’ agendas. This article reflects upon our research on alcohol law enforcement. We explore how some alcohol laws are ill-fit-for-purpose, whilst others are considered too difficult, or costly, to pursue. Subtle negotiations of compliance in which regulator and regulated form ‘partnerships’ are, at best, increasing trust and the flow of intelligence, and at worst, breeding complacency, inaction and regulatory capture. Gaps between headline statutory objectives and their delivery through policy implementation are being filled by corporate actors mobilising resources in line with central government predilections towards the outsourcing of control. In particular, the alcohol and hospitality industries promote ‘voluntary alternatives’ to the statutory roles and enforcement powers of city authorities and police. Replacing traditional law enforcement activity with self-regulation by alco-centric commercial interests is unlikely to assist attempts by public bodies, NGOs and other business sectors to engineer more diversified and inclusive urban nightscapes.