Review of Expectations around Public Safety in the Covid-19 Era

Governance of Corporate Public Safety

Business public security refers to the alleged occurrence of crimes registered in previous investigations initiated, or investigation files, reported by the Attorney General’s Offices and Attorney General’s Offices of the 32 federal entities, who are responsible for the veracity and updating of the data (Public Security System, 2015). Linked to the notion of public security, reintegration supposes the generation of new belief systems in ex-convicts, considering that only in this way can they accept, and therefore carry out, behaviors that are socially approved by the prisoner’s individuals [4].

In the organizational sphere, corporate public safety and the recruitment of human resources limited to labor reintegration make up a climate of relationships known as professional training that has its correlate in stress, mobbing or stalking in the case of digital protocols. In this way, formative violence is indicated by asymmetric and inequitable relationships between the members of the network, a management replaced by dogmas; the freedoms displaced by discretion; opportunities due to impositions, capacities reduced to their minimum expression in the face of kinship and co-responsibilities are inhibited by attributions of guilt Carreon J, et al. [5].

Consequently, the management and administration system of responsibilities between aggressors and victims within organizations is known as governance. It is a new style of government, different from the hierarchical and market control model, characterized by a greater degree of cooperation between governments and public administrations and non-governmental actors in the making of public policies. It is expected that, through this policy- making process, based on collaboration, consensus and the participation of different actors, the results and yields of the policies will be improved and, ultimately, the governance of the political system will be guaranteed.

In the governance process, civil participation oriented towards the incidence of public policies, understood as the process by which citizens, social, economic and institutional actors participate or influence the definition, management and control of general public policies or Sectorial, at local, provincial, departmental, national and institutional levels, involves creating, modifying or enforcing and/ or repealing public policies [6].

However, the security panorama is far from the theoretical explanation put forward. Indicated by levels of crime commission, prevention and administration of justice, it is possible to observe a systematic increase in the differences between the three categories in favor of complaints regarding cases processed and sentenced [7, 8].

Theory of Public Safety

Theoretical frameworks that explain the governance of public security warn that the differences between bureaucratic models focused on reporting and the administration of justice with respect to post-bureaucratic models focused on crime prevention through civil training pose:

• The prevalence of self-management by reducing the role of the State gendarme;
• The return of the autocratic state in the management and administration of judicial processes and
• The establishment of co-management assuming a shared responsibility among the actors Campos G, et al. [9].

The theory of justice that demonstrated the insufficiencies of intuitionism (an ideology that considered people to select what is good and what is bad) and the relevance of complementing a historical dilemma: freedom versus equality to solve the problem of freedom. Social injustice generated by the liberal State Carreon J, et al. [10].

The social structure of the welfare state promoted social justice through institutions that took social equity for granted (people are born with the same opportunities). This problem was overcome based on three foundations [11]:

• Everyone has the equal right to the broadest freedom compatible with equal freedom for all.
• Inequalities are unacceptable unless it is reasonable to expect that they will act in the best interests of all.
• Therefore, positions and trades must be open to everyone.

Freedom was the consciousness of necessity, consequently, inequality implied exclusive opportunities for a few individuals. The liberal State as immoral and unjust and proposed a theory with its corresponding method that vanished and overcame a false dichotomy: freedom versus equality. The reconciliation of both values materialized in a social contract. It was about the configuration of two forms of State (benefactor and liberal) based on a moral synthesis [12].

A theory of social justice and a method of reflective equilibrium emerged from the problematic of the immorality of the minimal liberal state. In this sense, the comprehensive values of tolerance and plurality of moral visions oriented to compatible demands. It is in this sense that the theory of social justice established the moral and legal, political and social, liberal and democratic foundations for a just liberal democratic society. Therefore, it is an interpretive and heuristic approach (it assumes criticism and adjusts its approaches) to political systems [13].

There are seven fundamentals around the just liberal state:

• The perception of freedom.
• The subsequent beliefs around equal opportunity.
• The consequent values of equality.
• The necessary moral individual who seeks the social good from establishing a reflective equilibrium point between the values of equality and the perceptions of freedom.
• The obvious cooperation and subsequent involvement.
• The resulting just democratic society; cooperative, orderly and stable.
• The inevitable redistribution of wealth from the liberal state for a full life.

The principle of maxim in (rational choice of a political system of lower costs versus higher benefits through a social contract) assumed that freedom and equality are principles of justice, at an institutional level; they were criteria that guided citizen decisions [14, 15]. The principles of equality had their counterweights in the principles of differences. These social, political and economic inequalities benefited the least advantaged. Consequently, equity (open opportunities in obtaining trades) emerged.

Both principles revealed the inadmissibility of utilitarian thinking that justified the social, political and economic advantages for individuals. Framed by the concept of reflective balance between social structure and individual decisions, each citizen accepts the two principles of justice to build an ordered society with morally free and equal individuals [16].

In this way, the State was raised as a redistributor of wealth. Through its institutions, it would face the hegemonic interests that appeal to the principle of freedom to profit from public services. In this sense, the freedom of consensus as the capacity that individuals have to choose, do and be was the main instrument in the conception of the just State [17].

In this sense, the social impact of the radical liberal State in relation to the classical liberal State supposes a minimal form of State as the only permissible and justifiable for a liberal society. This minimal form of state violated individual rights. However, in the liberal conception, those of free thought and property determined the protective function of the State. The difference between individual needs hampered cooperation between people. In other words, each autonomous member is equal in their rights but not in their obligations of solidarity. Morally, the decision of each individual implied their responsibility [18].

In this sense, the welfare state by interfering in the freedoms of individuals directly, negatively and significantly affected the functioning and social structure, political and commercial rights of people. This is how a minimal State should only guarantee the right to property and the corresponding security [19]. Therefore, the liberal state was a relevant option because it promoted individual rights. However, historically the state has expropriated properties to transfer them to elite. The state has transferred properties to private individuals who have not proven they deserve said assets. Therefore, the State is immoral [20, 21, 22].

In contrast, the maximum state as illegitimate as usurper and redistributor. Both functions would belong to the rationality of individuals who can decide to quote, buy, sell, and exchange or give away their goods. The State was illegitimate because it restricted these initiatives to individuals. Therefore, poverty and social exclusion were consequences of the immorality and impertinence of the state. Furthermore, the state has been ineffective in distributing wealth. Finally, the solution to social injustice is promoting a new morality in civil society [23]. • The utopias of moral change can be framed in the minimal state: civil rights.

• However, under the liberal state it was not possible to change individualistic human morality to collectivist morality.

• In addition, it was essential to change the legal framework to activate moral change.

• Therefore, society also had to change its habits more than its values.

Decision-making knowledge and communication skills imply the construction of a leading moral entity (State, group or individual). It is in democracies governed by the representation of majority wills and proportional minorities rather than by oligarchies, dictatorships or tyrannies, where both liberal approaches are relevant. However, this liberal democratic structure was incompatible for both individual growth and community development [24]. In this sense, equal opportunity is different from equal results. The social State by promoting equity also restricts the freedom of economic growth by planning production and regulating supply and demand [25, 26].

Studies of Public Safety Expectations

Roughly speaking, the expectations around globalization refer to the expected consequences of strategic alliances between multinationals and SMEs around local development, but their importance lies in the exploration of organizational climates conducive to networks, management, production and transfer of resources. Innovations aimed at positioning brands in the local market and their consolidation in the international arena.

The expectations around globalization, for the purposes of this paper, allude to the probable consequences of alliances between multinationals and SMEs in the framework of local development. This is so because the communities and neighborhoods peripheral to the cities develop a semi-urban identity, attachment to the place and sense of belonging that limits the positioning of multinationals, but also inhibits the emergence of SMEs, resulting in the alliance between these two hegemonic actors.

However, studies related to strategic alliances between SMEs and multinationals show that both are guided by local needs, but also by innovations that allow their insertion in the local market [27]. In this way, the networks, management, production and transfer of innovations suppose intangible assets and intellectual capital that both entities must weigh in order to be able to achieve the competitive advantages that allow the positioning of their brands and the consolidation of their business models [8]. In such scenarios, consumers’ perceptions of risk imply expectations of the consequences of establishing strategic alliances on the local agenda. It is a phenomenon in which peripheral communities and neighborhoods rather resist the lifestyles and consumption that alliances between multinationals and SMEs imply.

Globalization is part of a process in which localization is its antagonistic complement. This means economic and human flows concentrated in developed cities at the same time that those who remain in their places of origin take root, identifying with the global world through the mass media. Internet, as the main window to images and discourses, promotes ideas and feelings of plurality such as freedom of choice and competition. In contrast, feelings of solidarity develop in community areas. Both are consequences of the global and the local that are located in five dimensions [19].

Globalization being a reversal of closed societies that increased equality of results and decreased individual freedoms due to the absence of their rights and authoritarian regimes. It implies a new different social, economic and political system that can be built from the concatenation of its consequences. That is, regardless of equality and freedom, the consequent affectivity and rationality, the subsequent solidarity and competition, are the factors to reverse an unjust system for economically marginalized minorities [13].

The imbalance between equality and freedom can be reversed from its consequences concentrated in solidarity and competition. This suggests excluding the state bureaucracy, allowing community self-management and the development of a self-education system [28]. Local expectations in the face of globalization, indicated by the expected profits, risks, opportunities and capacities, suppose a scenario of competitive advantages based on intangible assets and intellectual capital, among which expectations stand out as factors of anticipation to conflicts or disagreements between economic, political and social actors. In the deck of expectations, the profits perceived as emerging factors in strategic alliances between multinationals and SMEs stand out, although their relevance lies in the balance posed by external demands and internal resources in organizations, their function is in the task climate, which would determine the climate of innovations and the climate of support.

However, inherent to the profits received the strategic alliances between multinationals and SMEs pose risks in the transfer of knowledge rather than in the management or production of innovations for the local market. An increase in risks not only implies a reduction in expected profits, but also implies an increase in capacities since, in the task environment where risks operate; these are corrected with empathy, trust and commitment. Consequently, the prevailing climate of relationships with respect to the climate of tasks, supports or trusts opens opportunities in management and production rather than in the transfer of information since, in knowledge networks, task climates are hegemonic. If the opportunities emerge from the climate of supports and tasks, then the capabilities will be distinguished by their degree of skills and knowledge inherent in the climate of innovations. This is that skills precede innovations, but underlie relationships of trust and empathy, if not commitment. The study of the expectations of the consequences of the globalization process focused on the strategic alliances between multinationals and SMEs involves observing the opportunities and capacities of knowledge management rather than production and transfer.

However, a scenario that is distinguished by a high degree of relationships of empathy, trust and commitment rather than by the proper functioning of its management, production and knowledge transfer structures implies more expectations of risk than expectations of benefit. Hernandez J, et al. [29]; Limon GA, et al. [30]; Sanchez A, et al. [31]; Sandoval FR, et al. [32] r extol identity as the common denominator between the imbalances that promote the multinationals in SMEs, values and local norms, expectations focus on a type of identity resulting from the organizational climate rather than the context in which it is framed. However, a comparative study between localities with and without strategic alliances of multinationals with SMEs will make it possible to establish significant differences, if any, or to establish the incidence of economic and political actors on social actors, mainly in talents, intangible assets and intellectual capitals.