Global Crime ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fglc20 Cumulative disruptions: interdependency and commitment escalation as mechanisms of illicit network failure Michelle D. Fabiani & Brandon Behlendorf To cite this article: Michelle D. Fabiani & Brandon Behlendorf (2020): Cumulative disruptions: interdependency and commitment escalation as mechanisms of illicit network failure, Global Crime, DOI: 10.1080/17440572.2020.1806825 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2020.1806825 View supplementary material Published online: 01 Sep 2020. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fglc20 GLOBAL CRIME https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2020.1806825 ARTICLE Cumulative disruptions: interdependency and commitment escalation as mechanisms of illicit network failure Michelle D. Fabiani a and Brandon Behlendorfb aDepartment of Social Sciences, Homeland Security Program,DeSales University, Center Valley, PA, USA; bCollege of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity, University at Albany (State University of New York), Albany, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Disruptions can take many forms resulting from both internal and Received Rxx xxxx xxxx external tensions. How illicit networks fail to adapt to a wide range Accepted Axx xxxx xxxx of disruptions is an important but understudied area of network KEYWORDS analysis. Moreover, disruptions can be cumulative, constraining the Criminal networks; network possible set of subsequent adaptations for a network given pre­ failure; escalation of vious investments. Drawing from a multi-national/multi-year inves­ commitment; tigation of a prominent Chinese human smuggling network interdependency; human operated by Cheng Chui Ping (‘Sister Ping’), we find that the net­ smuggling; cumulative work’s failure was a product of two interrelated factors. First, efforts disruption to scale the network to meet increased demand made the network more interdependent, adding new members and increasing vulner­ abilities to internal disruptions. Second, internal and external dis­ ruptions during a shipment cumulatively constrained the network’s ability to adapt, forcing the network to escalate their commitment rather than abandon the transit. The results suggest network dis­ ruptions should be examined holistically to improve our under­ standing of network failure. Introduction Network disruption is a central problem in the study of smuggling and trafficking net­ works. The removal of key nodes and subsequent network adaptation form the primary disruptive interaction between the state and illicit actors1. When pressure is applied, the removal of these nodes can substantially alter the organisation’s capabilities, depending on how the network adapts. For many, the fluid nature of the network itself (i.e. the ability to incorporate new actors into the network) allows them to rapidly adjust and continue operations2. In focusing on adaptation, however, illicit network resilience tends to be over­ emphasised, producing paradoxical conclusions. Adaptation in an illicit network is explained as both a response to successful interdictions (e.g. forcing new pathways, nodes, modes of transportation, etc.) and as a reason behind the interdiction’s failure3. For example, Bright & Delaney conclude that a network’s resilience resulted CONTACT Michelle D. Fabiani [email protected] Brisson Hall 209, 2755 Station Ave, DeSales University, Center Valley, PA 18034 Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here. © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 M. FABIANI AND B. BEHLENDORF from their adaptation to what would otherwise be termed ‘successful’ law enforce­ ment interdictions (i.e. arrest, prosecution, and sentencing of a central node).4 Thus, successful interdictions can produce successful adaptations, casting the network as resilient and flexible. In contrast, little is known about how illicit networks fail to successfully adapt, whether to external disruptions from law enforcement or internal interpersonal dynamics5. Qualitative approaches to criminal organisations, including Chinese humans smuggling groups6, focus on dynamics of illicit organisations (e.g. classifying types of groups based on their activities, goals, etc.), how different social-behavioural characteristics influence the organisation’s success (e.g. social embeddedness, trust, etc.). Quantitative approaches evaluate key structural changes, such as network fragmentation and resilience7. Yet, leaders overreach, distributors act irrationally, and transporters fail to fix broken taillights. Characteristics such as flexibility, resilience, and adaptability could be strengths or weak­ nesses, depending on the potential vulnerabilities introduced8. Examining network failure requires looking at both structural adaptations to disruption and the dynamic responses that led to those adaptations. The emphasis on understanding structural changes in the illicit network literature provides a complement to the focus on behavioural decision- making that dominates the qualitative literature. Moreover, most analyses (qualitative or network-based) ignore the potentially cumula­ tive aspect of disruptions. Studies on adaptation regularly rely on single points in time9, while ethnographic approaches address emergent behaviours across time. Yet, interven­ tions by law enforcement could lead to structural changes in the network that create opportunities for future interdictions. Leadership changes in response to interdiction can generate internal conflict, leading to operational errors that make the network more visible and vulnerable to law enforcement intervention. Thus, what is missing is an examination of suboptimal adaptations from both a historical and structural perspective. Including the potential for suboptimal adaptations allows for a more complete examination a network’s evolution in response to multiple interdictions and external disruptions, which may or may not become more resilient10. Similarly, combining historical and network approaches offers an opportunity to examine the process of network failure in more detail. To expand our understanding of how illicit networks11 can fail to adapt, we focus on a single case study of a Chinese human smuggling network operated by Cheng Chui Ping (‘Sister Ping’). We trace how the cumulative responses to internal and external disruptions not only increased the network’s vulnerability to interdiction, but ultimately led to its failure. We present one possible path to network failure, demonstrated via our mixed- method case study combining social network and historical analyses. Below is a brief review of the literature on network failure and criminal organisational decision-making, followed by overviews of the proposed path to network failure and the Sister Ping network. Data and methods are discussed in the next section followed by a detailed presentation of the findings. Lastly, we consider the implications and limitations of the results with respect to network failure. Network failure and organisational decision-making Although fluid in nature, illicit network structures are shaped by both internal and external forces12. Covert networks need to balance security from law enforcement and GLOBAL CRIME 3 external disruptions with efficiency of internal operations. This requires a structure that is easily concealable, allows for rapid diffusion of information, and is robust to disrup­ tion. For example, Xu and Chen found that many covert or illicit networks exhibit structures with small-world properties, where members (‘nodes’) are highly clustered and connected to all others through a short average number of connections (‘edges’ – typically less than six)13. Clusters ease rapid information diffusion, making the network more difficult to disrupt as a single person removed from the cluster can be easily replaced14. Decision-making also plays an important role in the success of an illicit organisation. Though it is not possible to observe these processes directly, scholars have used both empirical and qualitative approaches to examine the inner workings of these groups. The illicit network literature has identified several characteristics of successful networks that work to their advantage in decision-making, including flexibility or fluidity adaptability and resiliency15. Flexibility refers to the ease with which membership, structure, and operations can change within a network. Relatedly, adaptability can be described as the ability for a network to change in response to pressure16. Resilience refers to ‘the ability of market participants to preserve the existing levels of exchanges between buyers and sellers despite external pressure aimed at disrupting the trade.’17 These concepts are interconnected – for a network to be adaptable, it must be flexible and networks that are resilient are often also adaptable and flexible18. Of these, flexibility – or the ease with which membership, structure, and operations can change within a network – is the most commonly discussed in the literature and often facilitates other characteristics19. For example, Williams identified that individuals will move in and out of an illicit network as they see fit, depending on the opportunities and needs for their services20. When new skills are required, networks can expand quickly and at