Content uploaded by Klaus von Lampe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Klaus von Lampe on Feb 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Human Capital and Social Capital in Criminal Networks
Introduction to the special issue on the 7th Blankensee Colloquium
Klaus von Lampe
published in:
Trends in Organized Crime, 12(2), June 2009, pp. 93-100
http://www.springerlink.com/content/5783j176t77x2hx5/?p=37bb8e080b3e4efcbd3caefb
68d9df44&pi=0
Human Capital and Social Capital in Criminal Networks
Introduction to the special issue on the 7th Blankensee Colloquium
1
How organized is ‘organized crime’: A question of belief
For forty years the study of organized crime has been circling around the question of criminal
organization. However, not much progress has been made towards a better understanding of
how and why criminals interact and associate with other criminals. A major obstacle has been
the fact that scholarly efforts for a long time were primarily directed at showing on an
empirical level what ‘organized crime’ is not, by demonstrating that criminals are not
organized in certain ways, rather than examining how in fact they are organized. This
somewhat nihilistic tendency can be explained in part by the political overtone of the debate
on ‘organized crime’. The question of myth or reality, initially tied to the question of the
existence or non-existence of the Sicilian and American ‘mafias’ as hierarchical structures
with defined membership, became a question of belief. Viewing ‘organized crime’ in terms of
resourceful collective entities capable of purposeful action suggested an affinity to law and
order responses, the decapitating and dismantling of crime syndicates, rather than an
appreciation of the broader social, economic and political context of crime and corruption.
Accordingly, showing that crime syndicates did not exist in the form depicted in the media
and in official reports seemed to be all that was necessary in the direction of exploring the
organization of crime. Once the myths on which the dominant discourse on ‘organized crime’
rested were debunked, there was no longer any urgency to pursue the matter further.
The network concept
While the original political overtones of the late 1960s and early 1970s may have faded, the
debunking of the ‘Mafia myth’ has remained a prominent trait in the academic literature on
‘organized crime’, commonly presented in recent years within a dichotomic framework in
which criminal structures are described as ‘loose’ networks as opposed to ‘tightly knit’
organizations. The application of a network perspective, it seems, has come to be considered
good etiquette, not only among academic writers but also in public discourse, sometimes
paired with the highly debatable claim that a shift has been taking place not only in perception
but in the actual ways in which criminals organize, away from ‘tightly knit’ organizations to
‘loose’ networks. However, what some seem to regard as a major step forward in recent years
only leads back to the point where today’s critical discourse on ‘organized crime’ departed
from. It was Henner Hess (1970) in his classical study of the Sicilian Mafia who adopted a
network approach in order to discredit the notion of a criminal organization in the true sense
of the word. Another significant effort to reframe ‘organized crime’ in terms of networks, this
time in the absence of a mafia organization – real or imagined -, was undertaken by Francis
Ianni two years later when he set out to chart offender structures in deprived urban
neighborhoods in the New York area (Ianni, Fisher & Lewis, 1972; Ianni, 1974). Peter
1
I would like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the Institute for Advanced Study
(Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin) for allowing me to organize the 7th Blankensee Colloquium, and to all the
individuals who have assisted me in this endeavor. I would like to specifically thank Anette Schade and Ellen
Fröhlich from the office of research at Freie Universität Berlin, Gabriele Gramelsberger and Christoph Zürcher
who organized two of the previous Blankensee Colloquia and gave valuable advice, Martin Garstecki
(Wissenschaftskolleg), Tina Lißner (Europäische Akademie), Heike Eckart, Heinz Schweppe and Susi Üzel of
the department of Mathematics and Computer Science at Freie Universität Berlin, and last but not least the
members of the advisory board, Marcus Felson and Carlo Morselli.
Lupsha followed a while later with an application of network analysis to a drug trafficking
group in New York (Lupsha, 1983). As Hess, Ianni and Lupsha demonstrated, studying
criminal structures in terms of networks meant adopting a bottom-up approach, reconstructing
associational patterns starting from sets of dyadic ties, the existence of which can be
established in a fairly straightforward fashion through direct observation of interaction. In
contrast, the concepts of ‘criminal group’ and ‘criminal organization’ set potentially unclear
and misleading parameters and are prone to being forced onto phenomena that upon closer
inspection do not fit the mold of integrated structural entities. Still, to the extent one was
willing to accept the possibility of the existence of more integrated structures (Ianni, 1974),
the description and analysis could be meaningfully integrated into an overall conceptual
framework of network analysis (see also Natarajan 2000; 2006). Furthermore, the network
approach allowed the organization of large amounts of data, and the combination of various
types of data and data sources (see e.g. Finckenauer & Waring, 1998).
Criminal network analysis
Parallel to the increasing popularity of the network metaphor, criminal network analysis has
grown into a sophisticated scientific endeavor, bringing a new level of methodological rigor
to the study of ‘organized crime’. In a series of projects over the past few years, Carlo
Morselli and others have explored the potentials of criminal network analysis in different
directions, including explanations for the differential development of criminal structures and
the differential exploitation of entrepreneurial and career opportunities (see e.g. Morselli,
2001; 2003; Morselli & Giguere, 2006). In as much as these and other studies have shown the
fruitfulness of the network approach they also give an indication of its limitations. There are,
in fact, a number of problems on the methodological and conceptual level that have become
increasingly apparent, although they are not necessarily new.
The missing data problem
One problem that has for long been acknowledged by network analysts in general but one
which is particularly prevalent in criminal network analysis, is the problem of missing and
incomplete data. Missing data influence network analysis more than traditional statistical
analyses (Chattoe & Hamill 2005; Knoke & Kuklinski 1982). At the same time, data are
particularly likely to be missing in the case of criminal networks where researchers seldom
have prior knowledge about the complete set of actors. And even where all involved
individuals are known as such, researchers may still be unable to obtain the requisite
information on all existing ties (Sparrow 1991). In this respect, heavy reliance on law
enforcement data, namely wiretap records (see e.g. Morselli & Giguere, 2006; Natarajan,
2000; 2006), means that the contingencies and biases of law enforcement are reflected in the
picture of criminal structures created by network analysis. Only incidents of interaction
detected and recorded during a criminal investigation tend to find their way into the
criminological analysis, leaving aside relations to individuals who have evaded surveillance,
and also certain types of interaction, such as direct communication outside of monitored
channels.
Manifest and latent ties and the dimension of time
Another important set of relations tends to be ignored for methodological as well as
conceptual reasons. Criminal network analysis is geared towards capturing only manifest
links and not also latent links. However, latent links that are activated sporadically as
opportunities and needs arise, may be at least as important for understanding and assessing
criminal structures at any given point in time. It is well possible to imagine a criminal network
manifest in incidents of interaction to be generated by an underlying network of criminally
exploitable ties with both networks greatly differing, for example, in terms of size, density
and overall structure (von Lampe, 2003).
The dimension of time which comes into play when distinguishing manifest and latent
network structures, poses challenges for network analysis more generally. On the one hand
there is a question of validity when data collected over a time span are conflated into one
snapshot image of a network. On the other hand, it is difficult to capture the dynamics of
relational structures with the traditional toolkit of network analysis other than by comparing
snapshot images created for different time intervals (see e.g. Morselli & Petit, 2007).
The question of validity
Apart from these problems which are inherent in criminal network analysis there is a more
fundamental question of validity: How well suited is the network model for representing the
reality of ‘organized crime’? And indeed, network analysis first and foremost stands for a
specific model of social reality, one which depicts social phenomena in terms of webs of
dyadic ties.
Networks and organizations
There are various angles from which one could argue that the network model is overly
austere. One aspect has already been briefly noted, the question to what extent network
analysis can capture more integrated organizational structures to the extent they do indeed
exist. However, there is a problem of sorts only when networks and organizations are placed
at opposite ends of a spectrum of structural sophistication. The alternative to such a one-
dimensional view is to treat networks and organizations as representing distinct structural
dimensions while acknowledging that networks and organizations are not empirically
independent. Organizations evolve out of and are transcended by networks, just as every
organization can be defined as a network because its members are by definition connected
through specific ties (von Lampe, 2003). Accordingly, there is no fundamental obstacle for
analyzing integrated structural entities within the framework of network analysis. It is in the
first instance a question of operationalizing the specific characteristics of dyadic ties within
organizations (see Natarajan 2000; 2006), and in the second instance a question of
reformulating the problems that have already been formulated in a meaningful way within the
framework of organization theory (Reuter, 1983; Smith, 1994; Southerland & Potter, 1993).
The individual network member
Another aspect is the significance of individual characteristics for explaining the emergence
and shaping of criminal structures. Traditionally, network analysis treats individual capacities
as a function of network structure and of the position an individual occupies within it (see e.g.
Burt, 1992). But a causal link in the opposite direction, explaining network structures as the
outgrowth of the social competence and organizational talent of individuals, appears similarly
plausible. Indeed, research indicates that psychological and even neurobiological factors may
have an impact on the capacity and inclination of individuals to create and maintain relations
with others, and, accordingly, may influence the development and structure of networks (see
Kalish & Robins, 2006; Kosfeld et al., 2005). One could even go a step further and speculate
that what network analysis really does is to measure the social skills of individuals, including
the skills of individuals who do not show up in the data because they are not part of the
manifest network under investigation.
Somewhat surprisingly, and in stark contrast notably to research on terrorism (see Victoroff,
2005), the individual dimension of ‘organized crime’ has received little attention (Bovenkerk,
2000). However, a gradual shift in attention towards the individual ‘organized criminal’ has
become discernible in recent years. This trend marks a departure from the notion of relatively
static structures to the notion that in a chaotic and ever changing criminal world the least
common denominator is the individual offender who may or may not link up with other
offenders (von Lampe, 2006).
Amorphous groups and potential ties
A third critical aspect highlighting limitations of the network model while at the same time
indicating future avenues of theorizing and research, is the amorphous nature of interpersonal
links between potential co-offenders insofar as these links are established through, and
mediated by particular social settings rather than by direct dyadic relations. Marcus Felson, in
a discussion of gangs has argued that offender networks are “amorphous, unbounded and
unstable” and that, in order to account for the recurrence of co-offending, one must look not at
network structures but at the locations (“convergence settings”) where offenders meet and
socialize (Felson, 2003: 156; see also Felson, 2006). What Felson describes, in a sense, are
socio-ecological conditions defining neither manifest nor latent, but potential ties which
nonetheless appear highly relevant for comprehensively understanding patterns of criminal
cooperation and co-offending.
Yet another way of bringing potential ties into the picture is to consider the effect that the
reputation of amorphous groups can have on criminal relations. There is some indication that
offenders, in interacting with other offenders, are influenced by group-related stereotypes, for
example ethnic stereotypes (see e.g. Bovenkerk et al., 2003). Such stereotypes, at least under
certain circumstances, appear to facilitate the establishing of criminal relations because they
give rise to expectations that the members of a group may be suitable for criminal
cooperation, if only because of a reduced likelihood that they cooperate with the police (von
Lampe & Johansen, 2004). One could also imagine a situation in which previous successful
cooperation between individual members of different groups encourage others to likewise
seek co-offenders from among the respective other group. Here, again, one would find
potential network ties created in a specific social context.
The 7th Blankensee Colloquium “Human Capital and Social Capital in Criminal
Networks”
A unique opportunity to address the various concerns relating to criminal network analysis
was provided by the Institute for Advanced Study (Wissenschaftskolleg) in Berlin, Germany.
The Institute for Advanced Study gives grants for organizing conferences as part of the so-
called Blankensee Colloquium series. The Blankensee Colloquia are intended to bring
together outstanding researchers from various institutions in the Berlin-Brandenburg region as
well as from elsewhere in Germany and abroad for joint projects and long-term cooperative
projects in the area of the humanities and social sciences. I was able to win a grant of up to
30.000 Euros for organizing the 7th Blankensee Colloquium which was to promote advances
in the study of ‘organized crime’. Carlo Morselli and Marcus Felson served as advisors for the
fine tuning of the program and the selection of participants. The 7th Blankensee Colloquium
under the title “Human Capital and Social Capital in Criminal Networks” was held from 27
February until 2 March 2008 at the European Academy in Berlin. The 28 participants from
eight different countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, the
United Kingdom and the United States) represented various academic disciplines, including
criminology, psychology, forensic psychiatry, organization sciences, mathematics and
computer science, and research institutions as well as strategic crime analysis units within
government agencies. This special issue of Trends in Organized Crime includes some of the
papers presented at the 7th Blankensee Colloquium as well as one paper which falls squarely
within the thematic scope of the colloquium. Some of the issues addressed at the 7th
Blankensee Colloquium are also reflected in Carlo Morselli’s recently published book “Inside
Criminal Networks” (Morselli, 2009).
The program of the 7th Blankensee Colloquium was organized into four thematic blocks:
criminal network analysis, the problem of missing data, the situational context of criminal
networks, and the psychology of criminal networks. The first two themes are captured by the
concept of “social capital” which appears in the colloquium title. Social capital refers to social
networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them and affect the
productivity of individuals and groups (Putnam, 2001). The notion of “human capital”, the
second component in the colloquium title, referred to the discussion of the psychology of
‘organized criminals’ and the influence of individual characteristics on networks. The fourth
aspect, the situational and socio-ecological dimension of ‘organized crime’, is not reflected in
the colloquium title because of an inability to come up with an all-encompassing catchy
phrase. In this respect “Human Capital and Social Capital in Criminal Networks” is
something of a misnomer.
All major themes addressed during the 7th Blankensee Colloquium are in one way or the
other reflected in the articles included in this special issue of Trends in Organized Crime.
Renée C. van der Hulst provides a general introduction and a practical guide to criminal
network analysis. Anita Heber in her study of illegal practices in Sweden’s building industry
gives an example for the application of the network concept in criminological research. Carlo
Morselli connects the traditional perspective on criminal organizations with criminal network
analysis by comparing the formal ranks within an outlaw motorcycle gang with the positions
the same individuals occupied in a drug distribution network. Marcus Felson transcends the
boundaries of criminal networks analysis by looking at variations in the patterns of co-
offending. A discussion of the link between individual factors and network effects can be
found in the article authored by Garry Robins who links up the study of criminal networks
with the most recent advances in social network analysis. Going in the same direction of
combining individual and structural factors, Daniel M. Schwartz and Tony Rouselle outline a
framework for the identification of key players by not only focusing on the position of actors
in the network, but also on their relative potency.
The articles underscore the dynamic and interdisciplinary nature of criminal network analysis.
They show that the potentials of this field of research go far beyond the metaphoric use of the
network concept. At the same time they are an invitation to think beyond the scope of
traditional network analysis to include dimensions such as the psychology and ecology of
criminal structures. There is a chance that the study of criminal organization will finally free
itself from the self-imposed intellectual restrictions of the past and to proceed towards a better
understanding of how and why criminals interact and associate with other criminals. If this
special issue contributes to this development, a good purpose will have been served.
References
Bovenkerk, Frank, Wanted: ‘Mafia boss’-Essay on the personology of organized crime,
Crime, Law and Social Change 33(3), 2000, 225-242
Bovenkerk, Frank, Dina Siegel, Damiàn Zaitch, Organized crime and ethnic reputation
manipulation, Crime, Law and Social Change 39(1), 2003, 23-38
Burt, Ronald S., Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1992
Chattoe, Edmund, & Heather Hamill, It's Not Who You Know-It's What You Know About
People You Don't Know That Counts: Extending the Analysis of Crime Groups as
Social Networks, British Journal Of Criminology 45(6), 2005, 860-876
Felson, Marcus, The Process of Co-offending, in: Martha J. Smith & Derek B. Cronish (eds.),
Theory for Practice in Situational Crime Prevention, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice
Press, 2003, 149-167
Felson, Marcus, The Ecosystem for Organized Crime, Helsinki: HEUNI, HEUNI Paper No.
26, 2006
Finckenauer, James O., & Elin J.Waring, Russian Mafia in America: Immigration, Culture
and Crime, Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1998
Hess, Henner, Mafia: Zentrale Herrschaft und lokale Gegenmacht, Tübingen, GER: Mohr,
1970
Ianni, Francis A.J., Black Mafia: Ethnic Succession in Organised Crime, New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1974
Ianni, Francis A.J., Suzy Fisher, & Jeffrey Lewis, Ethnic succession and network formation in
organized crime, New York: Columbia University, 1972
Kalish, Yuval, & Gary Robins, Psychological predispositions and network structure: The
relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure,
Social Networks 28(1), 2006, 56-84
Knoke, David, & James H. Kuklinski, Network Analysis, Newbury Park: Sage, 1982
Kosfeld, Michael, Markus Heinrichs, Paul J.Zak, Urs Fischbacher, & Ernst Fehr, Oxytocin
increases trust in humans, Nature 435(2), 2005, 673-676
Lampe, Klaus von, Criminally exploitable ties: a network approach to organized crime, in:
Emilio C. Viano, Jose Magallanes, & Laurence Bridel (eds.), Transnational Organized
Crime: Myth Power and Profit, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2003, 9-22
Lampe, Klaus von, The Interdisciplinary Dimensions of the Study of Organized Crime,
Trends in Organized Crime 9(3), 2006, 77-95
Lampe, Klaus von, & Per Ole Johansen, Organised Crime and Trust: On the conceptualization
and empirical relevance of trust in the context of criminal networks, Global Crime
6(2), 2004, 159-184
Lupsha, Peter A., Networks versus Networking: Analysis of an Organized Crime Group, in:
Gordon P. Waldo (ed.), Career Criminals, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983, 59-87
Morselli, Carlo, Structuring Mr. Nice: Entrepreneurial opportunities and brokerage
positioning in the cannabis trade, Crime, Law and Social Change 35(3), 2001, 203-244
Morselli, Carlo, Career opportunities and network-based privileges in the Cosa Nostra, Crime,
Law and Social Change 39(4), 2003, 383-418
Morselli, Carlo, Inside Criminal Networks, New York: Springer, 2009
Morselli, Carlo, & Cynthia Giguere, Legitimate strengths in criminal networks, Crime, Law
and Social Change 45(3), 2006, 185-200
Morselli, Carlo, & Katia Petit, Law-Enforcement Disruption of a Drug Importation Network,
Global Crime 8(2), 2007, 109-130
Natarajan, Mangai, Understanding the structure of a drug trafficking organization: A
conversational analysis, in: Mangai Natarajan & Mike Hough (eds.), Illegal Drug
Markets: From Research to Prevention Policy, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press,
2000, 273-298
Natarajan, Mangai, Understanding the Structure of a Large Heroin Distribution Network: A
Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Data, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 22(2),
2006, 171-192
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 2001
Reuter, Peter, Disorganized crime: The economics of the visible hand, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1983
Smith, Dwight C., Illicit Enterprise: An Organized Crime Paradigm for the Nineties, in:
Robert J. Kelly, Ko-Lin Chin, & Rufus Schatzberg (eds.), Handbook of Organized
Crime in the United States, Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1994, 121-150
Southerland, Mittie, & Gary W.Potter, Applying Organization Theory to Organized Crime,
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 9(3), 1993, 251-267
Sparrow, Malcolm K., The application of network analysis to criminal intelligence: An
assessment of the prospects, Social Networks 13(3), 1991, 251-274
Victoroff, Jeff, The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of Psychological
Approaches, Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(1), 2005, 3-42
