Geography and public policy: mapping the penal state
Geography and public policy: mapping the penal state
复制标题
地理与公共政策：绘制刑罚国家地图
DOI：
10.1191/0309132503ph424pr
复制
发表时间：
2003
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Jamie Peck
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jamie Peck
近年来，地理领域的国家理论研究复苏，这并非巧合，其中大部分研究都是为了追踪、绘制和解释经济治理、公民关系和社会监管方面一系列影响深远的运动。这种“回归状态”伴随着规模的持续问题化、重新组织的标量关系和涌现的标量叙事（Marston, 2000; swyngedown, 2000; Brenner, 2001），这也不足为奇。现在，人们普遍认为，当代国家结构调整的过程与标量关系的转变深深纠缠在一起。这里的利害关系远不止为调整而调整，因为这些形式的调整既是一种媒介，也是国家行动手段和目的变化的结果。因此，有必要超越对国家结构调整、政策改革和新治理形式的“粗浅描述”，去问国家实际上在做什么——为什么、在哪里、在政治、社会和经济方面有什么影响。对紧急状态形式的仔细映射可以，也应该是这一过程的重要组成部分。当然，我们对政府——至少是发达工业国家——过去的所作所为了解甚多。在第二次世界大战后的30年里，凯恩斯主义的福利国家是维持收入、宏观经济管理以及社会和空间再分配等监管职能的关键场所。在过去的二十年里，由于这种历史上和地理上特定的治国方式已经被侵蚀和倒退，它已经逐渐（如果不均衡地）被新的治国方式所取代，而不是被自由市场所取代——就像新自由主义神话所说的那样。在此过程中，新的制度和监管格局正在形成，《人文地理进展》27,2 (2003)pp. 222-232
It is no mere coincidence that recent years have witnessed a resurgence in statetheoretical work in geography, much of which has been animated by a concern to track, map and explain a series of far-reaching movements in economic governance, citizenship relations and social regulation. Nor should it be surprising that this ‘return to the state’ has been accompanied by an insistent problematization of scale, reorganized scalar relations and emergent scalar narratives (Marston, 2000; Swyngedouw, 2000; Brenner, 2001). It is now broadly accepted that processes of contemporary state restructuring are deeply entangled with transformations in scalar relations. What is at stake here is far more than rescaling for rescaling’s sake, because these forms of scalar restructuring are both a medium and an outcome of changes in the means and ends of state action. Hence the need to move beyond ‘thick descriptions’ of state restructuring, policy reforms and new forms of governance to ask what it is that the state is actually doing – why, where and with what political, social and economic implications. The careful mapping of emergent state forms can, and should, be an important part of this process. Certainly, we know quite a lot about what the state – at least in the advanced industrial nations – used to do. In the three decades after the second world war, Keynesian welfare states were the key sites of regulatory functions like income maintenance, macro-economic management and social and spatial redistribution. As this historically and geographically specific form of statecraft has been eroded and rolled back over the last two decades, it has been progressively (if unevenly) displaced not by liberalized markets – as neoliberal mythology has it – but by new forms of statecraft. In the process, new institutional and regulatory landscapes are being created, Progress in Human Geography 27,2 (2003) pp. 222–232