Advertisement

Crime Prevention and Community Safety

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 169–188 | Cite as

Who are the guardians in product counterfeiting? A theoretical application of routine activities theory

  • Meghan E Hollis
  • Jeremy Wilson
Original Article

Abstract

Product counterfeiting, as an emerging problem, has seen limited scholarly attention. Although there has been an increase in the scholarly work in this area, much more remains to be done. This article is an attempt to address one considerable gap in the product counterfeiting literature – the application of criminological theory. At this time, no research on product counterfeiting has attempted to apply a theoretical perspective to understand the product counterfeiting phenomenon. This article involves a systematic attempt to view product counterfeiting through a routine activities theory lens. More specifically, this is an exercise in applying the theoretical construct of ‘guardianship’ to the study of product counterfeiting. Implications for prevention and policy are discussed.

Keywords

product counterfeiting routine activities guardianship crime prevention opportunity 

References

  1. Bloch, P.H., Bush, R.F. and Campbell, L. (1993) Consumer ‘accomplices’ in product counterfeiting: A demand side investigation. Journal of Consumer Marketing 10 (4): 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1993) Nodes, paths, and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13 (1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, R.V. and Newman, G.R. (2010) Designing Out Crime From Products and Systems, Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 18. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Chaudhry, P. and Zimmerman, A. (2009) The Economics of Counterfeit Trade: Governments, Pirates, and Intellectual Property Rights. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eck, J.E. (1994) Drug Markets and Drug Places. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  7. Eck, J.E. and Weisburd, D. (eds.) (1994) Crime and Place, Vol. 4, Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ekblom, P. (2005) Designing products against crime. In: N. Tilley (ed.) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Felson, M. (1986) Routine activities, social controls, rational decisions, and criminal outcomes. In: D. Cornish and R.V. Clarke (eds.) The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Felson, M. (1995) Those who discourage crime. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd (eds.) Crime and Place, Vol. 4, Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 53–66.Google Scholar
  11. Felson, M. and Boba, R. (2010) Crime and Everyday Life, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garofalo, J. and Clark, D. (1992) Guardianship and residential burglary. Justice Quarterly 9 (3): 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gentry, J.W., Putrevu, S., Shultz, C.J. and Commuri, S. (2001) How now Ralph Lauren? The separation of brand and product in a counterfeit culture. Advances in Consumer Research 28 (1): 258–265.Google Scholar
  14. Harvey, M.G. and Ronkainen, I.A. (1985) International counterfeiters: Marketing success without the cost and the risk. Journal of World Business 20 (3): 37–45.Google Scholar
  15. Heinonen, J.A. and Wilson, J.M. (2012) Product Counterfeiting: Evidence-Based Lessons for the State of Michigan. A-CAPP Paper Series. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  16. Heinonen, J.A., Holt, T. and Wilson, J. (2012) Product counterfeits in the online environment: An empirical assessment of victimization and reporting characteristics. International Criminal Justice Review 24 (1): 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hollis, M.E., Felson, M. and Welsh, B.C. (2013) The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 15 (1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hollis-Peel, M.E. and Welsh, B.C. (2014) What makes a guardian capable? A test of guardianship in action. Security Journal 27 (3): 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hollis-Peel, M.E., Reynald, D.M., van Bavel, M., Elffers, H. and Welsh, B.C. (2011) Guardianship for crime prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime, Law, and Social Change 56 (1): 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hollis-Peel, M.E., Reynald, D.M. and Welsh, B.C. (2012) Guardianship and crime: An international comparative study of guardianship in action. Crime, Law, and Social Change 58 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelepouris, T., Pramatari, K. and Doukidis, G. (2007) RFID-enabled traceability in the food supply chain. Industrial Management and Data Systems 107 (2): 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kennedy, L.W. and McGarrell, E.F. (eds.) (2011) Crime and Terrorism Risk: Studies in Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Kumar, S., Dieveney, E. and Dieveney, A. (2009) Reflective practice: Reverse logistic process control measures for the pharmaceutical industry supply chain. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 58 (2): 188–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lum, C. and Kennedy, L.W. (2011) Evidence Based Counterterrorism Policy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Marucheck, A., Greis, N., Mena, C. and Cai, L. (2011) Product safety and security in the global supply chain: Issues, challenges, and research opportunities. Journal of Operations Management 29 (8): 707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miethe, T.D. and Meier, R.F. (1994) Crime and Its Social Context: Toward an Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims, and Situations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Miethe, T.D., Stafford, M.C. and Sloane, D. (1990) Lifestyle changes and risks of criminal victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 6 (4): 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Niederman, F., Mathieu, R.G., Morley, R. and Kwon, I-K. (2007) Examining RFID applications in supply chain management. Communications of the ACM 50 (7): 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2007) The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  30. Pease, K. (2001) Cracking Crime Through Design. London: Design Council.Google Scholar
  31. Reynald, D.M. (2009) Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 1 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynald, D.M. (2010) Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to supervise, the ability to detect potential offenders, and the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47 (3): 358–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sampson, R., Eck, J.E. and Dunham, J. (2010) Super controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure. Security Journal 23 (1): 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slocum, J.T. (2010) Counterfeit Goods: How Did We Get Here and Where Will We Go Next? White paper, http://www.consulegis.ch/fileadmin/downloads/thomas_marx_ 0910/consulegis_tma_jenny_slocum_summary.pdf, accessed 18 September 2013.Google Scholar
  35. Spink, J. and Heinonen, J. (2012) Product Counterfeiting in Michigan and the Expectations and Priorities for State and Local Law Enforcement: Assessing the Awareness of and Response to the Problem. Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection Program Backgrounder Series. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  36. Staake, T., Thiesse, F. and Fleisch, E. (2009) The emergence of counterfeit trade: A literature review. European Journal of Marketing 43 (3–4): 320–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stahura, J.M. and Sloan, J.J. (1988) Urban stratification of places, routine activities and suburban crime rates. Social Forces 66 (4): 1102–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. U.S. General Accountability Office (USGAO) (2010) Intellectual Property: Observations on Efforts to Quantify the Economic Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods. Washington DC: US General Accountability Office.Google Scholar
  39. Van Brunschot, E. and Kennedy, L. W. (2008) Risk Balance and Security. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghan E Hollis
    • 1
  • Jeremy Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations