Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1: Cox, P. (2010). Juvenile justice reform and policy convergence in the New Vietnam. Youth Justice, 10(3), 227–244.

Abstract: This article analyzes juvenile justice reform in Vietnam and suggests how this connects with key transformations in wider Vietnamese cultures of control. It offers a grounded investigation of themes raised in recent discussions of policy transfer in the global criminal justice field. It concurs with others that global processes of policy convergence have their local limits, using Vietnamese examples to illustrate where this convergence comes about in practice and where it does not. It explores efforts to professionalize existing community justice practices through a discussion of perceived needs for “training” and for the expansion of “counseling.” In doing so, it aims to show how justice practices that might be called “neo-welfarist” are emerging in one of East Asia’s most remarkable political hybrids—the New Vietnam—a communist state that has embraced economic liberalism and, in the process, is creating a new kind of “social” sphere.

Article 2: Muncie, J. (2005). The globalization of crime control—the case of youth and juvenile justice: Neo-liberalism, policy convergence, and international conventions. Theoretical Criminology, 9(1), 35–64.

Abstract: The concept of globalization has gradually permeated criminology, but more so as applied to transnational organized crime, international terrorism, and policing than in addressing processes of criminal justice reform. Based on a wide range of bibliographic and web resources, this article assesses the extent to which a combination of neo-liberal assaults on the social logics of the welfare state and public provision, widespread experimentation with restorative justice and the prospect of rehabilitation through mediation, and widely ratified international directives, epitomized by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, have now made it possible to talk of a global juvenile/youth justice. Conversely it also reflects on how persistent national and local divergences, together with the contradictions of contemporary reform, may preclude any aspiration for the delivery of a universal and consensual product.