The question addressed by this chapter may seem naive. For many, especially those who advocate firm action against anti-social behaviour (ASB), it is self-evident that the central and local state should be engaged as vigorously as possible in efforts to crack down on anti-social behaviour. However, governments vary over place and time in their enthusiasm for doing so (cf Burney, 2005), and it is reasonable to ask why they should take on this responsibility, and why they should do so now.

The government's ‘Respect’ website provides a succinct answer: ‘Anti-social behaviour ruins lives. It doesn't just make life unpleasant; it prevents the renewal of disadvantaged areas and creates an environment where more serious crime can take hold.’ In fact, it has provided three answers in a single sentence. This alone may suggest that there is room to take a critical view of rationales for tackling ASB. The concept of ASB is a slippery one to define, of course, and governments tend to duck the issue. We can all agree that ASB falls somewhere on the continuum between mere bad manners, on the one hand, and serious criminality, on the other. Precisely where the boundaries fall is a contentious issue, because any behaviour labelled as ASB implicitly falls within the scope of the state apparatus for tackling it.

In this chapter we have drawn on the results of a study that combined empirical research in five areas with a review of policy and research literature. One of the aims of the study was to examine the rationales offered by policy documents and by local officials for tackling ASB. The empirical element of the study involved interviews with key officials responsible for tackling ASB, and reviews of policy documents in five Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) in England and Wales. Although the research was conducted in 2003/04, its findings are still relevant to contemporary debate about ASB. We have anonymised the five participating sites as Lonborough, Newtown, Northport, Prospertown and Westerncity. All were cities or large local authority districts within cities. The study found, both in the policy and research literature and in officials’ accounts of their work, four main rationales for tackling ASB: