techniques not only embody political assumptions and commitments to particular models of social explanation, they also imply a political context and have political consequences' (Crawford, 1998:246). Notwithstanding this, the tendency in much crime prevention discourse has been to replace political debate with administrative platitudes on the need for more co-ordination, sustainability, accurate intelligence, sophisticated evaluation and monitoring, ad nauseam. It follows that policy-oriented learning about the outcomes of crime control cannot be divorced from a critical appraisal of the processes through which certain policy responses are formulated and implemented. Rather, the outcomes of policy are inextricably related to these processes; they are implied in alternative narrations of 'the problem', 'the solution' and how this solution is to be accomplished. From this perspective, it is important to discern competing 'governmentalities' in crime control discourse, what their implications for policy-making have been and what, nonetheless, they could be (Edwards and Gill, 2002; O'Malley, 1992; Stenson, 1999). Switching the terms of debate from an administrative to an expressly political discourse enables a more fundamental questioning of the significance of crime control strategies. It is in these terms that we reconsider the frenetic policy-making activity around the perceived threat of TOC in Chapter 16.