Book Review: Neoliberalismo y castigo by I González Sánchez

Leading scholars have called for an expansion of the punishment and society perspective beyond the North Atlantic, neoliberal heartlands on which this body of literature has primarily focused its analytical gaze (Simon and Sparks, 2013). Ignacio González's Neoliberalismo y castigo (Neoliberalism and Punishment, hereinafter NyC) is a decisive step in that direction. Indeed, not many monographs published in Spanish are as consistent as NyC in exploring the penal field as a complex social institution (see NyC, pp. 25, 177), recognising that the penal field cannot be understood by merely taking into account its legal and law enforcement dimensions (pp. 52, 184).

Superficially considered, NyC can be seen as an academic effort to test the neoliberal penality thesis (Wacquant, 1999/2009, 2009) in a Southern European jurisdiction such as Spain. Certainly, the book presents the results of that type of exploration, but it goes well beyond that specific academic endeavour. It makes a significant contribution to the political economy of punishment by closely scrutinising the impact of the neoliberal ethos and rationales on three key public policy fields: labour policies, social policies, and penal policies. For these purposes, NyC examines the shifts in these three fields witnessed in Spain over a four-decade period by considering them through the lens of some basic tropes of neoliberal governmentality, that is those of individualisation, ‘contractualization’ and moralisation, all of which are safeguarded by punitive forms of state coercion (see e.g. pp. 179, 181–182).

In elaborating its richly textured analysis of these public policy changes, NyC goes a long way in revitalising and updating academic debates on the neoliberal penality thesis. The monograph persuasively highlights the many methodological and theoretical strengths of that analytical framework (see pp. 37–41). However, in problematising Wacquant's thesis by bringing it to a new geographical and temporal setting, NyC lays bare some of its limitations requiring further examination (see also Wacquant's Foreword, p. 12). In fact, the book casts new light on two critical dimensions of that thesis. Initially, it challenges the claim that an expanding penal state may be seen as a vital, inherent component of neoliberalism (pp. 44–45, 187–189), in line with previous critics of Wacquant's work (Mayer, 2010; O’Malley, 2014). In fact, the book ends by emphasising that the consolidation of a neoliberal rationale in the field of public policies ‘does not necessarily entail the expansion of the penal arm of the state’ (NyC, p. 204). That perspective allows González to advocate the validity of the neoliberal penality framework in a period in which incarceration rates have been declining in many global north countries since the late 2000s (pp. 202–204).

In addition, NyC convincingly stresses that the ‘neoliberal turn’ is only part of the story to be told. In fact, González stresses that ‘the neoliberal penality thesis does not explain everything’ (NyC, p. 189; see also pp. 24, 178, 190). In many jurisdictions, politico-economic viewpoints alone, even viewpoints as sophisticated as the analysis of the multi-faceted neoliberalisation of public policies, do not suffice to account for recent penal changes. Particularly in late democratised countries such as Spain, additional forces should be taken into account, such as the long-lasting legacy of the authoritarian past and its implications in terms of exceptional forms of penal control (pp. 52, 160, 171, 189; s. also Brandariz, 2018; Cheliotis and Sozzo, 2016).

Despite its conceptual sophistication, the book leaves some questions partly unanswered, thereby inviting further debates in this field. In contrast to its fine-grained analysis of the penal and welfare changes witnessed in Spain until the first decade of the twenty-first century, NyC shows certain hesitation in characterising the impact of neoliberal policies on the penal field in the last ten years, because its methodological premises do not align well with short-term analyses (pp. 25, 55, 202). That is a significant research gap, for the Spanish criminal justice system is witnessing a prison downsizing of an unprecedented duration that deserves further scrutiny. Additionally, this focus on turn of the century changes prevents NyC from engaging with the burgeoning conversation on whether and to what extent emerging far right populism platforms (Brown, 2019), and more recently anti-coronavirus legal and political regimes are giving rise to a sort of post-neoliberal global order (Xenakis and Cheliotis, 2019).

By contrast, González's monograph tackles the thorny debate of the indicators and manifestations of state punitiveness (Nelken, 2009). The book demonstrates that neoliberal policies resulted in a rise in state punitiveness in post-transitional Spain, at least until the late 2000s and early 2010s (p. 178). What is not self-evident, though, are the dimensions to be considered when empirically scrutinising the punitive turn in the Spanish case. NyC decides to explore criminal law reforms, policing changes, prison changes, the criminalisation of immigration and enemy penology arrangements focusing on drug crimes and terrorism crimes, amongst other aspects (see NyC, chapter 5). This compelling selection implicitly invites scholars to further González's research agenda aimed at thoroughly exploring the multi-layered dimensions of late twentieth century-early twenty-first century penal populism in Spain (see also Jiménez Franco 2016/2020). As a consequence of the relatively recent development of criminology and socio-legal studies in the Spanish case, the full, detailed story still awaits to be told. Yet, NyC makes a path-breaking contribution to draw up some critical chapters of this story. In so doing, it has given a vital boost to punishment and society studies in Spanish speaking academia. That is a significant contribution, in a time in which a climate change in the penal field (Karstedt, Bergin and Koch, 2019) is apparently leaving behind the punitive turn era that characterised the first phase of development of that body of literature (Garland, 2018; Simon and Sparks, 2013).