Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Involvement mechanisms for organized crime

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to illuminate the processes that make individuals engage in organized crime activities. Within the diversity of individual involvement processes, several distinctive mechanisms are discussed. Theoretical ideas are illustrated by empirical data on 15 crime groups, including over 300 offenders. The crime groups differ in size, composition, and the nature of criminal activities. Social capital theory is used to understand the dynamical process of becoming involved in organized crime; on the one hand an individual contributes to a crime group, on the other hand the crime group helps an individual reach certain goals. Case studies reveal several resources, such as knowledge, skills, and equipment, that make offenders suit and contribute to a particular organized crime group. Criminal and conventional histories of organized crime offenders turn out to be diverse. Several joint characteristics that opened doors to organized crime opportunities, like running one’s own business, are discussed. It is confirmed that involvement through family and long-time friends is common; most criminal groups contain at least one or two relatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Using the theory of social capital to explain crime involvement seems paradoxical at first sight, as higher levels of social capital are generally found to be related to lower crime levels [29]. However, social capital also has its downside. Some social structures have illegal means, such as organized crime groups, and individuals within such groups use the contacts within the group to mount their criminal activities [27]. This downside of social capital is labeled perverse social capital [31] or criminal social capital [19]. It is the consequence of an environment that favors criminal behavior.

  2. Two main perspectives characterize social capital theory (see for an overview [28]). The first centres on individuals as units of analysis and is related to a rational choice approach (applied by e.g. [4, 5, 17]). The second perspective takes a more sociological view, focusing on the collective rather than the individual (applied by e.g. [27, 29]). This study uses a combination of these two perspectives by reasoning from the interaction between resources of the individual offender and resources of the criminal group.

  3. Organized Crime Monitor considers groups the be involved in organized crime “when they are primarily focused on obtaining illegal profits, systematically commit crimes with serious damage for society, and are reasonably capable of shielding their criminal activities from the authorities” [8]. For more information on this monitor, see [13].

  4. This number is relatively low because many offenders are not born in the Netherlands or do not even live here, whereas we only have data available on Dutch judicial contacts. So, this does not mean the remaining offenders are first offenders; they may have extensive judicial careers outside the Netherlands.

  5. This is more or less the same proportion as in the Organized Crime Monitor, in which 55 out of 120 crime groups are involved in drugs.

References

  1. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Black, S. E., Devereux, P. J., & Salvanes, K. G. (2005). Why the apple doesn’t fall far: understanding the intergenerational transmission of human capital. The American Economic Review, 95(1), 437–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Broidy, L. M. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39(1), 9–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage & closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Farrington, D. P., & West, D. J. (1995). Effects of marriage, separation, and children on offending by adult males. In Z. Smith Blau & J. Hagan (Eds.), Delinquency and disrepute in the life course, 4. Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fijnaut, C., Bovenkerk, F., Bruinsma, G., & Van de Bunt, H. (1998). Organized crime in the Netherlands. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Flap, H. (2002). No man is in island: The research programme of a social capital theory. In E. Lazega & O. Favereau (Eds.), Conventions and structures in economic organization: Markets, networks and hierarchies. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jackson, E. F., Tittle, C. R., & Burke, M. J. (1986). Offence-specific models of the differential association process. Social Problems, 33(4), 335–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: A chilling exploration of the criminal mind – from juvenile delinquency to cold-blooded murder. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kleemans, E. R. (2007). Organized crime, transit crime, and racketeering. In M. Tonry & C. Bijleveld (Eds.), Crime and justice in The Netherlands: Crime and justice: A review of research, 35. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kleemans, E. R., & De Poot, C. J. (2008). Criminal careers in organized crime and social opportunity structure. European Journal of Criminology, 5(1), 69–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kleemans, E. R., & Van de Bunt, H. G. (1999). The social embeddedness of organized crime. Transnational organized crime, 5(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kleemans, E. R., & Van de Bunt, H. G. (2008). Organised crime, occupations and opportunity. Global Crime, 9(3), 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Matsueda, R. L. (1988). The current state of differential association theory. Crime & Delinquency, 34(3), 277–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McCarthy, B., & Hagan, J. (2001). When crime pays: capital, competence, and criminal success. Social Forces, 79(3), 1035–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Morselli, C. (2001). Structuring Mr. Nice: entrepreneurial opportunities and brokerage in the cannabis trade. Crime, Law & Social Change, 35, 203–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Morselli, C. (2009). Inside criminal networks. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Morselli, C., Tremblay, P., & McCarthy, B. (2006). Mentors and criminal achievement. Criminology, 44(1), 17–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mortimer, J. T. (1974). Patterns of intergenerational occupational movements: a smallest-space analysis. The American Journal of Sociology, 79(5), 1278–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Natarajan, M. (2006). Understanding the structure of a large heroin distribution network: a quantitative analysis of qualitative data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. The American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Piquero, A. R., & Hickman, M. (2002). The rational choice implications of control balance theory. In A. R. Piquero & S. G. Tibbetts (Eds.), Rational choice and criminal behavior: Recent research and future challenges. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Reuter, P. (1985). The organization of illegal markets: An economic analysis. Washington: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rubio, M. (1997). Perverse social capital: some evidence from Colombia. Journal of Economic Issues, 31(3), 805–816.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: the salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 609–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sampson, R. J., Laub, J. H., & Wimer, C. (2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology, 44(3), 465–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schloenhardt, A. (1999). Organized crime and the business of migrant trafficking. Crime, Law and Social Change, 3, 203–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Chicago: J.B. Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1978). Criminology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Thornberry, T. P., Freeman-Gallant, A., Lizotte, A., Krohn, M., & Smith, C. (2003). Linked lives: the intergenerational transmission of antisocial behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tittle, R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Uphoff, N. (1999). Understanding social capital: Learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Van de Bunt, H. G., & Kleemans, E. R. (2007). Georganiseerde criminaliteit in Nederland. Derde rapportage op basis van de Monitor Georganiseerde Criminaliteit [Organized crime in the Netherlands: Third report based on the Organized Crime Monitor (English summary)]. The Hague: WODC.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Van Koppen, M. V., De Poot, C. J., & Blokland, A. A. J. (2010). Comparing criminal careers of organized crime offenders and general offenders. European Journal of Criminology, 7(5), 356–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Van Koppen, M. V., De Poot, C. J., Kleemans, E. R., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2010). Criminal trajectories in organized crime. British Journal of Criminology, 50(1), 102–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Von Lampe, K., & Johansen, P. (2004). Organized crime and trust: on the conceptualization and empirical relevance of trust in the context of criminal networks. Global Crime, 6, 159–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Wikstrøm, P. O. H. (2004). Crime as alternative: Cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In J. McCord (Ed.), Beyond empiricism: Advances in criminological theory volume 13, Institutions and intentions in the study of crime. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    M. Vere van Koppen

  2. Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice, The Hague, The Netherlands

    M. Vere van Koppen

  3. Faculty of Law, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    M. Vere van Koppen

Authors
  1. M. Vere van Koppen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Vere van Koppen.

Additional information

The data used in this paper are part of a continuing research project, the Organized Crime Monitor. I am grateful to the members of the Organized Crime Monitor research group, particularly Ruud Kouwenberg and Maïté van Nassou. Special thanks go to Christianne de Poot, Edward Kleemans, Arjan Blokland, and the reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Koppen, M.V. Involvement mechanisms for organized crime. Crime Law Soc Change 59, 1–20 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9396-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9396-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation