Processes of convergence and divergence in the policy formulation of policing strategies for European metropolises

This edited collection forms part of a broader, ongoing, research project, ‘The Policing European Metropolises Project’ (‘PEMP’). The Project has its origins in a network of researchers interested in the significance of sub-national policing for understanding processes of convergence and divergence in policing across Europe. The Project commenced in 2013 and reported the findings of its first phase (‘PEMP_1’) in a special issue of the European Journal of Policing Studies (Ponsaers, Edwards et al., 2014). The initial aim of the project was to address the question: ‘To what extent is a local police still present in European metropolises and how is this reality linked with other actors in the security field?’ (Ponsaers, Edwards et al., 2014: 4). This question was defined in relation to current debates in policy discourse and social science about the relationship of sub-national, specifically metropolitan, policing to developments in the European ‘internal security field’ (Bigo & Guild, 2005). This includes developments in supra-national policing policy, including the European Union’s objective of creating a Union-wide ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (AFSJ), transnational policing arrangements, such as the Schengen Agreement, and the continued importance of national policing strategies given the variegated historical experiences of European countries, for example those in transition from former Soviet regimes in Eastern and Central Europe or Latin countries in transition from former dictatorship. In questioning any continued ‘local reality’ of policing, the Project seeks to distinguish itself from theories of convergence in European policing as a consequence of, for example, ‘Europeanisation’ (Bigo & Guild, 2005), ‘securitisation’ (Waever, 1995; Hallsworth & Lea, 2011), ‘responsibilisation’ (Garland, 2001), ‘neo-liberalisation’ (Wacquant, 2001) the formation of a ‘transnational state’ (Bowling & Sheptycki, 2012) or the promotion of ‘plural policing’ (Jones & Newburn, 2006). Rather, the Project acknowledges these ‘tendencies’ but seeks to identify their uneven impact and the adaptation of local policing to alleged master narratives of policing change. In turn, this interest in divergence has been stimulated by arguments about the particular importance of metropolises in the constitution of ‘global’ security threats and policing responses. These arguments reflect wider debates in social science about ‘glocalisation’ or the idea that, as a consequence of