In Copenhagen this week I spoke at a conference on ‘New Security Threats’ organised by the Danish Institute for International Studies. It was a great place to test out the main ideas of our Connecting the Dots project, which looks at deliberative frameworks for dealing with complex risks and so-called ‘wicked’, intractable problems.

Professor Michael Williams led a fascinating discussion on his research into private security. Surprising, and shocking statistics were given on how, throughout the world, private security employees now vastly outnumber public security officials. Private security now has footholds at the highest levels; for example, control over entry to GCHQ has been outsourced to G4S.

What could this mean for the Weberian idea of the state having a monopoly over the use of force? Williams emphasised that in most cases – South Africa being one notable exception – states still jealously guard this monopoly. Private security firms are more often employed for surveillance, intelligence and admin support, rather than the direct use of force. But old boundaries between public and private are gradually disappearing. As private firms are increasingly involved in identifying potential threats, and coordinating the coercion used against those identified, that fact that it’s public, not private, employees who are using force on the front-line begins to seem a shaky foundation for the Weberian concept of the state.

This ambiguity and complexity fitted nicely into the arguments of Connecting the Dots. With the audience of thinktankers, academics and politicians we discussed how the ‘wickedness’ of problems gets obscured in policy debates.  Generally, we’re far more comfortable acknowledging that we’re not sure what the solution to a problem is, than accepting that we’re not clear on what the problem is.

We look forward to incorporating the ideas to come out of these discussions into Connecting the Dots, to be published this summer.

New Comment