Governing Social Marginality: Welfare, Incarceration, and the Transformation of State Policy
Abstract
Rapid growth of the US penal population over the last two decades has coincided with a decline in the number of welfare recipients. While shifts in crime rates, economic and political considerations most commonly account for variations in incarceration, we place the rise in incarceration levels in the institutional context of welfare state retrenchment. An analysis of state-level incarceration rates between 1975 and 1995 indicates that large penal systems are found in states with weak welfare systems. The negative relationship between welfare and incarceration grows over time, suggesting the emergence of a novel kind of penal-welfare regime in the late 1980s and 1990s. Although welfare state retrenchment is often interpreted as a kind of market deregulation, our analysis suggests that declining support for social welfare is part of a punitive policy development in which the state has a substantial and active role.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Compelling candidates for these external features are the American political economy and its racial politics, welfare retrenchment, and winner-take-all politics.
“Compelling candidates are the American political economy and its racial politics (Beckett and Francis 2020), broad retrenchment of the welfare system (Beckett and Western 2001;Wacquant 2001Wacquant , 2009)), and the winner-take-all nature of the American political system (Garland 2023;Lacey 2010).”
From The Rise of the Carceral State: Foundations and Contours of a Rapidly Changing Criminal Legal System (2025) · cites this paper as Beckett and Western 2001
John Sutton documented changes in penal regimes in countries with less regulation than the US, decentralized political systems, and weak worker protections.
“John Sutton, for example, has documented changes in penal regimes in countries with less regulation than the US, decentralized political systems, and weak protections for workers (Sutton 2013(Sutton , 2004; see also Beckett and Western 2001 for a similar analysis across US states).”
From The Rise of the Carceral State: Foundations and Contours of a Rapidly Changing Criminal Legal System (2025) · cites this paper as Beckett and Western 2001
The overwhelming conclusion of carceral state scholars is that American exceptionalism in crime and punishment rates is matched by its weak welfare state and the degradation of social supports and protections that might serve as alternatives to the penal system.
“The overwhelming conclusion of carceral state scholars is that American exceptionalism in crime and punishment rates is matched by its weak welfare state and the degradation of social supports and protections that might serve as alternatives to the penal system (Beckett and Western 2001;Garland 2023;Gottschalk 2008;Sutton 2004;Wacquant 2009).”
From The Rise of the Carceral State: Foundations and Contours of a Rapidly Changing Criminal Legal System (2025) · cites this paper as Beckett and Western 2001
Welfare supports (or lack thereof) also condition state variation in punitive policies and incarceration rates within the United States.
“Welfare supports (or lack thereof) also condition state variation in punitive policies and incarceration rates within the United States (Beckett and Western 2001).”
From The Rise of the Carceral State: Foundations and Contours of a Rapidly Changing Criminal Legal System (2025) · cites this paper as Beckett and Western 2001
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shannon, S. K. S., Uggen, C., Schnittker, J., Thompson, M., Wakefield, S., & Massoglia, M. (2017) · Demography · doi:10.1007/s13524-017-0611-1 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
“Variation in punishment rates by state is attributable to differences in economics, crime rates, demographics, politics, and sentencing laws (Barker 2006; Beckett and Western 2001; Greenberg andWest 2001; Jacobs and Helms 2001; Lynch 2010; Stucky et al. 2005).”
Schwartz, G. L., & Jahn, J. L. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229686 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Punishment is Purple: The Political Economy of Prison Building
Eason, J., & Campbell, M. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4473836 · Cited by 10
The Rise of the Carceral State: Foundations and Contours of a Rapidly Changing Criminal Legal System
Wakefield, S., & Turney, K. (2025) · RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences · doi:10.7758/rsf.2025.11.3.04 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- BECKETT, K., & WESTERN, B.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Venue
- Punishment & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-59
- ISSN
- 1462-4745 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3095
- OpenAlex
- W2151735386
- Cited by
- 518
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 30
- FWCI
- 48.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Punishment & Society (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
- Keywords
- incarceration rates, welfare state retrenchment, social marginality, welfare recipients, criminal policy, punitive policy, market liberalization, social assistance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
