Values for Some: How Does Criminal Network Undermine the Political System? A Data Mining Perspective

  • Roberto Peroncini
  • Rita Pizzi
Part of the Contemporary Systems Thinking book series (CST)


The topic of this work is the dilemmatic situation emerging from the relationship between Economics of Crime and Political System. If a complex System as the Criminal Network cannot be totally grasped by the General Rational Choice Theory (GRCT); if its Total System of Values is functionally equivalent for the General System Theory in Political Science (GSTPS), it is necessary to review both in the light of other Theoretical Systems. And since the two Theories are based on a concept of Equilibrium which does not remedy the complexity of situations involving planes of infinite possibility, it is necessary to replace it by another one that does not allow the same problems. The question slots into a central knot in which not only edifying intersections but also inevitable interdisciplinary conflicts are produced.


  1. Barabasi, A.-L. (2002). Link. The new science of networks. New York: Perseus Books Group. ISBN-10: 0738206679.Google Scholar
  2. Barabasi, A.-L. (2010). Bursts: The hidden patterns behind everything we do. New York: Dutton. eISBN: 978-1-101-18716-6.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, G. (1988). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Cambridge: NBER. Accessed October 30, 2017.Google Scholar
  4. Bentley, A. (1908). The process of government. A study of social pressures. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies. Accessed October 30, 2017.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. M. (1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of democracy. Accessed October 30, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M. (1966). An individualistic theory of political process. In D. Easton (Ed.), Varieties of political theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. M. (1973). A defense of organized crime? In S. Rottenberg (Ed.), The economics of crime and punishment (pp. 119–132). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  9. Capra, F. (2002). La Rete della Vita. Milano: RCS Libri.Google Scholar
  10. Carli, L. (2006). Notes on the Scientific Proof in the Criminal Case – from the findings of the preliminary phase to the probative conclusions judgement into decision. Italian S.C.J. Conference – 1–19 (note 16).Google Scholar
  11. Cood, E. F. (1970). A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Accessed October 30, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cood, E. F. (2009). The relational model for database management – Version 2. Accessed October 30, 2017.
  13. Easton, D. (1953). The political system, an inquiry into the state of political science. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  14. Easton, D. (Ed.). (1966). Varieties of political theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Ferrau, P., Marzaduri, E., & Spagher, G. (2013). La Prova Penale. Accessed October 30, 2017.Google Scholar
  16. Han, J., Kamber, M., & Pei, J. (2012). Data mining: Concepts and techniques (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, Morgan Kaufmann.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. IBM Knowledge Center. (2017). Accessed October 29, 2017.
  18. Isaacson, W. (2007). Einstein. La sua vita, il suo universo (pp. 221–227). Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori.Google Scholar
  19. Kurgan, L. A., & Musilek, P. (2006). A survey of knowledge discovery and data mining process models. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landauer, R. (1975). Stability and entropy production in electrical circuits. Journal of Statistical Physics, 13(1), 1–16.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luhmann, N. (1974). Sistema Giuridico e Dogmatica Giuridica. Bologna: ll Mulino.Google Scholar
  22. Luhmann, N. (1978). Stato di Diritto e Sistema Sociale. Napoli: Guida Editore.Google Scholar
  23. Luhmann, N. (1980). Concetti di Politica e “politicizzazione” dell’amministrazione. In G. Gozzi (Ed.), Le Trasformazioni dello Stato. Tendenze del dibattito in Germania ed in Usa (pp. 70–92). Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
  24. Luhmann, N. (1981a). Come è Possibile l’Ordine Sociale. Roma, Bari: Laterza & Figli.Google Scholar
  25. Luhmann, N. (1981b). La Differeniazione del Diritto. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  26. Luhmann, N. (1991). Procedimenti Giuridici e Legittimazione Sociale. Milano: A. Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  27. Luhmann, N., & De Giorgi, R. (1991). Teoria della Società. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  28. Minati, G. (1998). Sistemica, Etica ,Virtualità, Didattica, Economia. Milano: Apogeo.Google Scholar
  29. Minati, G. (2001). Collective beings. Milano: Apogeo.Google Scholar
  30. Minati, G. (2009). L’incertezza nella gestione della complessità. Accessed October 29, 2017.Google Scholar
  31. Minati, G. (2016). Knowledge to manage the knowledge society: The concept of theoretical incompleteness. Accessed October 30, 2017.Google Scholar
  32. Miucci, C. (2011). La Testimonianza Tecnica nel Processo Penale. Scholar
  33. Monti Bragadin, S. (1971). Questioni di Metodo. Scienze della Natura e Scienze dell’Uomo. Natura soggettiva del dato nelle Scienze umane. Controcorrente. Verifica delle ipotesi di trasformazione della Società, 3(1/2), 67–92 (Milano: CESES).Google Scholar
  34. Monti Bragadin, S. (1973). Uso Critico ed Uso Dogmatico della Ragione: Note Introduttive. Controcorrente. Verifica delle ipotesi di trasformazione della Società, 5(2), Numero Tematico sul Razionalismo critico in onore di Karl Popper. A cura di S.Monti-Bragadin e V. Bělohradskỳ, 3–15. Milano: CESES.Google Scholar
  35. Monti Bragadin, S. (1982). Alcuni tratti delle Scienze Umane. Biblioteca della Libertà, 84/85, 91–131 (Firenze: Le Monnier).Google Scholar
  36. Nikolle, M. (2016). Information management (Project Report, Prof. A. Ceselli). Milano: Department of Computer Science, University of Milan.Google Scholar
  37. Orlandi, M. (2016). Probabilistic methods (Project Report, Prof. R. Pizzi). Milano: Department of Computer Science, University of Milan.Google Scholar
  38. Pareto, V. (1911). Manuale di Economia Politica con una introduzione alla scienza sociale. Accessed October 30, 2017.Google Scholar
  39. Pareto, V. (1916). Trattato di Sociologia Generale (Vol. 2, pp. 545–837). Firenze: G. Barbera.Google Scholar
  40. Pessa, E., & Penna, P. (2000). Manuale di Scienza Cognitiva. Intelligenza Artificiale classica e Psicologia Cognitiva. Roma, Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  41. Prigogine, I. (2007). L’Esplorazione della Complessità. In G. Bocchi & M. Ceruti (Eds.), La Sifda della Complessità (pp. 155–169). Torino: Paravia Bruno Mondadori.Google Scholar
  42. Simon, H. (1958). Il Comportamento Amministrativo. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, V. (2008). La Razionalità nell’Economia. Fra Teoria ed Analisi Sperimentale. Torino: IBL Libri.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, V. (2016). Sentiments, conduct, and trust in the laboratory. Accessed October 29, 2017.Google Scholar
  45. Tarello, G. (1980). L’Interpretazione della Legge. Milano: A. Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  46. Valentini, C. (2008). Il caso di Rignano: ancora un episodio del rapporto tra scienza e processo. In Cassazione Penale (pp. 190, 200). Milano: A. Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  47. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  48. Von Hayek, F. A. (1950). The pure theory of capital. Accessed October 30, 2017.Google Scholar
  49. Von Hayek, F. A. (1982). Legge, Legislazione e Libertà. Critica dell’Economia Pianificata. Milano: Il Saggiatore.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Peroncini
    • 1
  • Rita Pizzi
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GenoaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations