Understanding Key Differences Between Bureaucratic and Patron-Client Organized Crime Networks - Essay Example

Section/# Organized Crime: Understanding Key Differences Between Bureaucratic/Corporate and Patron-Client Organized Crime Networks Although one might incorrectly assume that organized crime is a type of monolithic entity that has strong commonalities within its different forms, this is an incorrect assumption to make. Although there are two distinct forms of organized crime, the ways in which these two distinct forms operate are quite divergent. On the one hand, there exists what is known as bureaucratic/corporate organized crime; conversely, there also exists what is known as patron-client organized crime. Furthermore, by working to understand the patterns, commonalities and distinct differences between the two, the individual can obtain a much clearer grasp of the ways in which these activities operate as well as understanding their necessary component parts. Bureaucratic/Corporate Organized Crime Bureaucratic organized crime exhibits a number of tell-tale marks that help to differentiate it from the more commonly known and recognized patron-client networks of organized crime. However, just because bureaucratic organized crime may be less recognizable, it does not mean in any way that it exists to a lesser degree in our society. A few of the most recognizable aspects of bureaucratic organized crime is that it usually maintains a rigid yet complex authority structure, maintains a top-down communication mechanism, meritocratic advancement, extensive documentation to regulate the ways in which the outfit is run and organized, responsibilities oftentimes carried out in a detached and impersonal manner with no regards for the relationship of an individual to the mission of the organization, and extensive division of labor between the organizational classes. The reason that this is a lesser known type of organized crime is not because it exists to a lesser degree than does the patron-client network but primarily due to the fact that the cultural stigma attached to organized crime almost invariably centers around the “crime family”. Due to the fact that television, films, and the music industry has spent the past 50 years advancing the belief that this is the only type of organized crime that currently exists in our society, people have incorrectly assumed that it is the most prevalent and high profile organized crime that exists. This is however not the case as bureaucratic/corporate crime accounts for a much higher annual percentage of organized crime than the better known variant of patron-client organized crime. Also worth special note is the fact that although it may be exceedingly difficult for patron-client networks to operate under the guise of legitimacy, this is however not the case for bureaucratic/corporate organized crime. This is at least partly due to the fact that the bureaucratic organized crime organizations are oftentimes much better to conceal the actual nature of many of the illegalities they commit on a daily basis. By presenting themselves under a modicum of some type of business endeavor and professionalism, the bureaucratic organized crime outfits often are able to give off an air of legitimacy that other less polished organized crime outfits cannot. It should be additionally noted that the bureaucratic/corporate organizations have a laundry list of vulnerabilities and flaws that lend them to be vulnerable to detection by the requisite authorities. It is interesting note that these very flaws are inherent due to the nature of how bureaucratic/corporate organized crime is established and run (Fox, 1989). First among these is the fact that the top-down nature of communication is highly susceptible to interception. Likewise, the predilection towards maintaining written records lends itself to being easily intercepted and or used at a point later in time by the requisite authorities. Furthermore, infiltration by the likes of the FBI or another law enforcement organization can have a detrimental effect as the organization can completely and utterly collapse due to such actions due to the way it is set up. Lastly (and this is true of patron-client networks as well), injury, incarceration, death, and internal power struggles can severely weaken the security of the organization. Patron-Client Organized Crime Likewise, the more culturally recognizable patron-client networks of organized crime operate in a much more fluid and indeterminate/non-predictable manner as compared to that of the aforementioned bureaucratic/corporate organized crime groups. In a way, one can understand that the patron-client networks can almost be understood as type of business operation in which contracting parties often come and go as the work ebbs and flows. In this way, it can be much more difficult for authorities to understand, infiltrate, and work to destroy such groups (Kelly, 2000). Whereas a given entity may be involved in a particular part of the process of organized crime in one month, a different entity entirely might be involved the next. This combined with the non-regimented way that these groups operate and the fact that a strict set of rules and/or paper trail oftentimes does not exist only serves to add to the overall level of complexity authorities face when dealing with such groups. Like the bureaucratic organizations discussed at some length earlier in this analysis, the patron-client networks have a modus operandi which helps to distinguish and set them apart from other forms of organized crime. Perhaps the first and most easily recognizable of these is the fact that a hierarchy of family, social, or cultural traditions is oftentimes what defines and helps to congeal the group as compared to whatever competition it may face. Further, this familial, cultural, or social locus of power helps to keep the group in oftentimes a very tight-knit formation; perceivably impenetrable to outsiders/law enforcement (Volkman, 1998). Additionally, due to these social, familial, and cultural attributes, the group may oftentimes engage in rivalries and territorial disputes that do not necessarily equate to an overall increase in the profit margin of the group. In other words, the group may engage in activity that does not serve to benefit the bottom line in lieu of settling scores and preserving attributes of familial/cultural loyalty that might exist. Furthermore, strong and entrenched belief systems may pervade such organizations. Such belief systems may be concentric on religion, family values, cultural expectations, gender roles, or a host of other factors. Although such specifications of seemingly minor minutia may seem to be a rather exhaustive list of unimportant information, the fact of the matter is that each of these items that have been listed are powerful tools that law enforcement uses to understand, track, anticipate, and infiltrate such organizations. By further understanding the weaknesses and common modes of operations of both types of organized crime, law enforcement is able to create a running profile of each so that predictable methods of operation, likely metamorphosis, common techniques, likely alliances, and vulnerabilities can be tracked and exploited as a way of impeding and stopping the spread of further organized crime in the community and the nation. Reference Fox, S. (1989). Blood and power : organized crime in twentieth-century America. New York: W. Morrow. Kelly, R. (2000). Encyclopedia of organized crime in the United States : from Capone's Chicago to the new urban underworld. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. Volkman, E. (1998). Gangbusters : the destruction of America's last mafia dynasty. Boston: Faber and Faber. Read More