6 RivalViewsofOrganisedCrime ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thismonographrepresentsoneoutputofatwoyearstudentshipprovidedby theLeverhulmeTrust,whomtheauthorwouldliketothankfortheirgenerous support.Inaddition,theauthorwouldliketothankallthoseattheISSofficein CapeTown,andespeciallyPeterGastrow,forprovidingastimulatingandwel- comingworkenvironment. LIST OF TABLES TABLE1 Propertiesoffourmodelsofcriminalcoordination 18 TABLE2 PoliceperceptionsinSADCcountriesoftopthreetransnational organisedcrimethreats 47 CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION Thequestionthatformsthebackgroundtothismonographis,“whatisthena- tureoforganisedcrime?’Thisisaratherfamiliarsubjectandonethathasbeen responsibleforanextensiveamountofacademicdiscussionspanningwellover 70years,originatingintheUSAbutnowincreasinglyofglobalconcern. Traditionallythoseinterestedinthesubjecthavebeensomewhatobsessedwith adefinitionaldebate—peoplehavecontestedwhatthedefiningcharacteristics oforganisedcrimeareandhowtheycanbeencapsulatedinauseabledefini- tion.Whilemuchofthiswritinghasbeensomewhattedious,theexerciseis clearlyveryimportant.Indeed,giventhesupposedincreaseandspreadofor- ganisedcrimeonecouldsuggestthatthedefinitionaldebateiscorrespondingly becomingofincreasingconcern.Thus,anecessaryconsiderationisdiscussing whatvariouspeopleandinstitutionsthink‘organisedcrime’is.Indoingso,itis hopedthatanhistoricaloverviewofthesubjectcanbeprovided,includingan introductiontosomeofthemostinfluentialtexts. However,thekeyaimhereisnottoprovidethedefinitivedefinitionoforgan- isedcrime.Rather,themostimportantaspectofthismonographistheargument thatorganisedcrimehasbecomeamuddledanalyticalconceptinmainstream discourseduetoacombinationofpoorempiricalresearchandpopularmiscon- ceptionsaboutnotoriouscrimegroupssuchastheAmericanMafia.Inagree- mentwithothersIsuggestthattheconceptoforganisedcrimeshouldbere- placedwiththatof‘illicitenterprise’.Thisrecommendationismorethansimply oneofsemantics,foritinvolveschangingtheanalyticalfocusawayfromcriminal groupsandtowardsspecificcommodityandserviceeconomies.Thischangein theunderlyingunitofanalysismayovercomesomeofthemajorshortcomingsof bothlawenforcementandresearchinthisfield. Themonographcomprisesthreemainsections.Thefirstdealswiththebasic question:Howcancrimebeorganised?Inanswer,fourmodelsareconstructed basedoncompetingvisionsofcriminalgroups,especiallyLaCosaNostra.These models,whencombined,formacomprehensiveframeworkforunderstanding howcrimecanbeco-ordinatedandwhyitisco-ordinatedinthewaythatitis. Thissectionendsbycontemplatinghowthesemodelsmaybedevelopedfor futureresearchandhowtheymaybeusedtodeveloppolicy. 2 RivalViewsofOrganisedCrime Thesecondsectionprovidesahistoryoftheevolutionofamainstreamdefini- tionfororganisedcrime.Itstartsfromthe1930sintheUSAandendswithits presentstatusasafamiliarworldwideconcern.Thesectionendswithasum- maryofhoworganisedcrimehasbeendefinedinSouthernAfrica. Thethirdsectionconsistsofacriticaldiscussionofthemajorassumptionsofthe mainstreamconceptualisationoforganisedcrime.Indoingsotheparametersof amainstreamparadigmonorganisedcrimeareintroducedandcritiqued. Thefinalsectionpresentsanalternativeperspective,designedtoovercomethe problemsassociatedwiththemainstreamparadigm.Inparticular,Isuggestthat thenotionofillicitenterpriseshouldreplacethetwoconceptsoforganisedcrime andwhite-collarcrime,andthatwithinthebroadsubjectofillicitenterpriseit maymakesensetofocusonillegaleconomiesasindividualsystemsratherthan focussingonspecificcrimegroups.Themonographendswithalistofprinciples thatshouldformthebasisofanalternativeperspective. Althoughthismonographisessentiallytheoretical,ithasbeenwrittenbearingin mindthatthepublisher,theInstituteforSecurityStudies,isworkingonmatters relatingtoorganisedcrimeintheSouthernAfricanDevelopmentCommunity (SADC)region.Thus,wherepossible,Ihavetriedtobringinexperiencesand casestudiesfromSouthernAfrica.Unfortunately,thelackofpublishedmaterial onthistopicintheregionmeansthataSouthernAfricanfocuswillbydefault seemlargelyaSouthAfricanfocus. CHAPTER2 HOW CAN CRIME BE ORGANISED? Toprovideaninsightintothedifferingwayscrimecanbeco-ordinated,four modelswillbeconstructedandcompared.Thesemodelsarenotexclusiveto thecriminalworld;infact,allfourwereoriginallydevelopedbyscholars concernedwithanalysingtheco-ordinationofsociallifeingeneral.Itisonly recentlythatonefindsdirectreferencetothesecompetingmodelsincrimi- nologicaltexts.Priortothis,themodelsremainedimplicitincriminological studies,withauthorsunknowinglysketchingtheparametersofeachmodel throughargumentsovertherealityofspecificcasesoforganisedcrime.The fourmodelsarehierarchy,networks,marketsandclans. Inthischaptertheobjectiveistomerelysketchtheparametersofeachmodel. Theyarethereforepresentedasbeingratherstatic.However,asynthesisof thefourmodelsattheendofthechaptershowsthatfutureworkshould exploreamoredynamicapplicationofthesemodels.Thisinturnshouldleadto contextualstudiesoforganisedcrimethatmayshedlightintopolicydebates. Hierarchy Thehierarchicalmodelofcriminalco-ordinationwasdevelopedmostlu- cidlybyDonaldCressey,whoproducedabodyofworkthatisstillconsid- eredbymanyscholarsasaprerequisitetounderstandingallfurtherdebates onthesubjectofcriminalorganisation.ResearchonLaCosaNostrainAmerica duringthelate1960sledCresseytodevelopavisionoforganisedcrimeasa formal,rationalentitybasedonthedivisionofspecificroles.1 Inmanyways Cressey’simageoforganisedcrimerepresentedtheunderworldreflectionof MaxWeber’sinfluentialtheoryontheprinciplesofbureaucracy,andthus Cressey’smodelbecameknownasthebureaucraticmodel. AccordingtoCressey,LaCosaNostrarepresentedthemostadvancedformof criminalorganisation.Cresseyofferedseveraltypologiesofcrimeorganisa- tionsbasedontheexistenceofspecificpositionsorjobs,allofwhichLaCosa Nostrapossessed.LaCosaNostrawasthereforedefinedasanendpointon anorganisationalcontinuum.AccordingtoCressey,theinternalstructureof thiscriminalorganisationwasasfollows: 4 RivalViewsofOrganisedCrime Atthetopwasa‘commission’thatactedasarulingboardofdirectors.Be- neaththiswere24crimefamilieswhooperatedinspecificcitiesthroughout America.Attheheadofeachfamilyisaboss(the Don) ,supportedbyan underboss(vice-president),acouncillororadviserandabuffer—thego-between betweenthebossandtherestofthemembers.Thesemembersarefurther dividedintolieutenantswhopresideoverthecommonsoldiers.Beneaththe soldiersareothercriminalswhoexistoutsidetheorganisationandwhocon- ductworkonthestreet.Theyare“therelativelyunskilledworkmenwhoactu- allytakebets,answertelephones,drivetrucksandsellnarcotics,andsoforth”.2 MembersofLaCosaNostrawereofItaliandescentwhilethoseoutside,or beneath,themembersweretypicallyofadifferentethnicorigin. Aswithallconventionalbureaucracies,moneyflowedupthepyramidand governancefloweddown.Thus,themenatthetopwhogaveordersandex- tractedthehighestearnings,co-ordinatedthewholeenterprise.Moreover,as onegoesupthehierarchyonefindsanincreasingdistancefromthecriminalac- tivitiesthemselves,designedinparttoaffordgreatersafetytothemenatthetop. Cressey’sbureaucracythusmetallbutoneofthefourmaindefinitionalcrite- riasetdownbyMaxWeberandlaterredefinedbyPaulBlau:3 Ahierarchyof authority;specialisation(membersarechosenfortheirexpertiseinparticular jobsfortheorganisation); continuity(fulltimerolesthatoccuroveralong periodoftime);impartiality(theworkoftheorganisationisconductedonthe groundsofspecificruleswithoutarbitrarinessorfavouritism).Cresseyfallsdown onthefourthashisevidencesuggestedthattheMafiapreferredtokeepmem- bershiprestrictedtofellowItaliansandwasthussomewhatdiscriminatoryrather thanimpartial. AswiththeworkofWeber,theimportanceofCressey’smodelwasnotonlyas adefinitionalmodel,butalsoasanormativeone.Asadefinitionalmodel Cresseywasstatingthecriterianecessaryforacriminalorganisationtobecon- sideredpartoforganisedcrime.Asanormativemodel,Cresseywasarguing thatLaCosaNostrarepresentedthemostrationalandefficientformofcrimi- nalorganisation.Inotherwords,criminalorganisationsbecomemoreadvanced andcriminallyefficienttheclosertheyapproximatethebureaucraticmodelof organisedcrime.Thus,CresseystatedinalecturegiveninEnglandinthe1970s thatEnglishcriminalorganisationswerenotasdevelopedasorganisedcrime inAmerica;thedangerwouldcomeiftheymovedinthatdirection.4 ForCressey, thethreatofacriminalorganisation(itscriminalefficiency)iscorrelatedwith thedegreeofbureaucracy.Weber,inlanguagethatissimilartothatusedlater byCressey,wrotethat,“thepurelybureaucratictypeofadministrativeorgani- Standing 5 sationis,fromapurelytechnicalpointofview,capableofattainingthehighest degreeofefficiency”.5 Cresseymayhaveprovidedthemostdetailedaccountofthebureaucratic model,howeverhewasnotthefirsttoarguethatorganisedcrimedeveloped towardshierarchy.Indeed,thenotionoforganisedcrimeoperatingasacom- plexbureaucracyhadbeensupposedfordecades.In1919anarticleinthe BulletinoftheChicagoCrimeCommissionstated: Thebusinessofcrimeisbeingmoreexpertlyconducted.Moderncrime, likemodernbusiness,hasbeencentralised,organisedandcommercial- ised.Oursisabusinessnation.Ourcriminalsapplybusinessmethods.6 AfewyearspriortoCressey’sfirstmajorpublicationRobertAndersonpub- lishedanarticleintheAmericanJournalofSociologydescribingtheevolution ofItalianAmericanorganisedcrime.7 Anderson’sstorybeginswiththevarious Sicilianpre-industrialpeasantinstitutionsthatoperatedas“intimateanddif- fuseorganisations”,stronglyformedbykinshipties.Theywereessentiallyprod- uctsoftheirungovernedfeudalenvironmentandwerebuiltupontraditional formsofsocialinteractioncommontoallSicilians.Andersonpointedoutthat suchtraditionalorganisationseitherdisappearoradaptduringindustrialisa- tionandmodernisation.IntheUSA,dueinparttothelucrativeopportunities presentedbyprohibitionandtheaccelerationofallaspectsofmodernisation