Researchers are increasingly focusing on the apparent convergence of criminal justice and penal policies in different nations around the world. In particular, the emergence and spread of “United States-style” criminal justice policies, such as “zero tolerance” strategies, privatization, and harsher sentencing policies, has been oft-noted. This apparent convergence of criminal justice and penal policies has been theorized in two main ways. According to the first view, structural and cultural conditions shape policymaking so that fundamental shifts in major social structures have the ability to produce changes in cultural sensibilities, which in turn lead political decisionmakers to adopt similar penal policies. The second view of the convergence of penal policy posits that key actors in the policy process purposefully imitate and transfer policy between jurisdictions; thus earning its title as an “agency-led” approach. The first section of the chapter outlines the main strengths and limitations of both the “structural-cultural” and “agency-led” perspectives on penal policy convergence. The two approaches are contrasted for their focus on either the broad social forces of change (“structural-cultural”) or on the specification of empirical particulars (“agency-led”). The second section of the chapter probes the concept of “policy” and the dimensions of “substance” and “process.” According to the author, criminologists have taken the concept of “policy” for granted in so far as their research has focused on the effects of policy rather than on the origins of policy. The third section explores the substantive dimensions of policy in three areas of convergence oft-noted in the research literature: “zero-tolerance” strategies, prison privatization, and sex offender registration. Distinctions are drawn between symbolic aspects and concrete manifestations of policy. The final section compares United States and United Kingdom policy processes and degree of policy convergence in “zero-tolerance” strategies, prison privatization, and sex offender registration. The final analysis points to important distinctions between policy content on the one hand and policy styles, symbols, and rhetoric on the other. The author asserts that the convergence noted in the three main areas under consideration has occurred mainly at the level of symbols rather than practice. Notes, references