RAND_MR1382

elations rather than formal hierarchies. 4 In an important historical study of organized
crime in New York, Alan Block discovered that it was not only more fragmented and
chaotic than believed, but also that it involved “webs of influence” that linked criminals
with those in positions of power in the political and economic world. These patterns of
affiliation and influence were far more important than any formal structure and
allowed criminals to maximize opportunities. 5
More recently, Gary Potter has suggested that organized crime in the United States can
best be understood in network terms, while Finckenauer and Waring, in a study on
Russian émigré criminals in the United States, concluded that they operate largely
through network structures. 6 Of particular importance is the work of Malcolm Sparrow,
who not only applies concepts from social network analysis to the operation of criminal
networks, but also offers innovative insights into ways in which the vulnerabilities of
these networks might be identified and exploited. 7 My own work has also moved in this
direction. 8
This emphasis on criminal networks reflects a growing acknowledgment, among
researchers into crime, that there is no single, dominant organizational structure with
universal applicability, and the realization by law enforcement agencies that they are
seeing patterns of organized crime that do not fit the traditional hierarchical structure.
The German BKA (the equivalent of the American FBI), for example, has observed that
most of the criminal organizations it investigates are “loose, temporary networks” and
that “lastingly established, hierarchical structures” are rather in the minority. In the
BKA’s view, the evidence in Germany suggests that even hierarchical organizations such
as the Italian Mafia families allow their local branches considerable discretion. 9
Perhaps even more significant, a major study of organized crime in Holland noted great
variations in collaborative forms and concluded that
the frameworks need not necessarily exhibit the hierarchic structure or meticulous division of labor often
attributed to mafia syndicates. Intersections of social networks with a rudimentary division of labor have also been
included as groups in the sub-report on the role of Dutch criminal groups, where they are referred to as cliques. As
is demonstrated … there can be sizeable differences in the cooperation patterns within these cliques and between
the cliques and larger networks of people they work with on an incidental basis. 10
In other words, there is a growing recognition that organized crime often operates
through fluid networks rather than through more formal hierarchies.
Important as they are, none of these studies systematically explores the advantages of
network structures as an organizational form for criminal activities. This chapter
identifies both the characteristics of networks that make them an ideal form for
organizing criminal activities and the specific characteristics of criminal networks
themselves. This conceptual analysis of criminal networks also draws insights from
social network and business theories and moves beyond theory to draw implications for