Search Results

Chapter 4 explores the extent of public and private linkages, and the significance of social capital in shaping policing activities at the first of two case study waterfronts—the Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Complex. This analysis scrutinises the pervasiveness of social capital across this waterfront security network by examining the intricate web of actors at play, interpreting the relational ties, and identifying the distinct patterns, social structures, and trust norms that define these policing partnerships. Accordingly, this chapter shows that social capital is exploited by public and private actors at the Port Complex for crime control purposes, enabling productive engagement on multiple levels: through inter-agency partnerships, exclusively private partnerships, and public-private co-production. However, the results reveal that access to social capital is not completely without restraint across the network, and that these crime control partnerships are not entirely unaffected.

Chapter 5 features the second waterfront case study, the Port of Melbourne, and presents somewhat of a counterpoint to the Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Complex introduced previously. This chapter chronicles networked-life across Melbourne’s waterfront, and assesses the significance of social capital in shaping the various policing and security partnerships (be they inter-agency, private, and public-private). The pervasiveness of social capital is scrutinised through an evaluation of the relational ties, social structures, and trust norms existing between and amongst actors. The findings expose several key barriers impeding the ties between actors at the Port of Melbourne, thus producing a widespread scantness of social capital that further obstructs policing partnerships on the waterfront. The significance of these barriers and the effects of this dearth of social capital on collaborative crime control activities are also examined.

The second chapter turns to the crucial issue of cause and effect. Does generosity actually increase well-being or, rather, is it prior well-being that produces more generosity? It may be, some skeptics will suspect, that generosity does not itself enhance well-being. Rather, they might believe, happier, healthier, and more purposeful people simply tend to behave more generously, because those kinds of people have more energy, vision, and physical capacity to be generous than unhappy, unhealthy, purposeless people. Chapter 2 demonstrates that causality runs in both directions, and outlines nine central mechanisms. Greater well-being indeed often facilitates generosity. But, at the same time, generosity also enhances well-being. It does so through specific causal mechanisms that we can understand, explain, and test. This chapter also includes four ideal typical cases to demonstrate how these mechanisms operate over the course of a person’s life.