publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · web viewthis is the author’s accepted manuscript of calderoni,...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
This is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of
Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal Leaders in Meeting and Wiretap Networks.” Crime, Law and Social
Change, March. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-019-09829-6. The final publication is available at https://link.s-
pringer.com/article/10.1007/s10611-019-09829-6
The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal Leaders in Meeting
and Wiretap Networks
Francesco Calderonia and Elisa Superchib
a Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy
b Dipartimento di sociologia e ricerca sociale, Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca,
Milan, Italy
Abstract: Criminal leaders enhance their social capital by strategically brokering infor-
mation among associates. To balance security and efficiency, leaders may favor meet-
ings instead of telephones, potentially affecting analyses relying solely on wiretap data.
Yet, few studies explored criminal leaders’ use of meetings in the management of crim-
inal groups.
We analyze criminal leaders’ participation in meetings and telephone calls in four dis-
tinct investigations. For each case, we extracted meetings and wiretap networks, ana-
lyzed leaders’ network positioning and identified leadership roles through logistic re-
gressions relying on network centrality.
Results show that leaders minimize telephone use (20% missing in wiretap net-works),
and act as brokers, particularly in meeting networks (betweenness 18 times higher than
non-leaders). Regressions on meeting networks identify leaders more effectively than
wiretap networks, with betweenness centrality as the strongest predictor of leadership.
Leaders’ centrality in meetings shows their strategic brokering position and the social
embeddedness of criminal groups. While meeting participation is a sign of power, it is
also a social obligation that leaders can hardly minimize. This makes them more visible,
with possible benefits to investigations and intelligence.
Keywords: network analysis, organized crime, criminal networks, dark networks, lead-
ership
1
![Page 2: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Acknowledgments We wish to thank two anonymous reviewers, Scott Decker, David
Krackhardt, Giulia Berlusconi, Elisa Bellotti, and Tomáš Diviak for the useful com-
ments to our manuscript. This work is the result of the joint efforts by both authors. F.C.
and E.S. jointly contributed to the design of the study to the data collection and to the
analysis of the results. F.C. wrote the introduction and discussion, and reviewed the fi-
nal manuscript.
1. Introduction
Leaders are fundamental for organizational success. Since the 1970s, research on leadership
has re-focused from human capital, i.e. individuals’ traits, to social capital, i.e. resources em-
bedded in social relations (Coleman, 1988). Studies analyzed the connections between indi-
viduals’ status and their role within their social networks, pointing up how relations play a
major role in the achievement of leadership (Burt, 1980; Granovetter, 1973). Access to new
information generates relational asymmetries that may be crucial in competitive settings, and
individuals exploit connections that are sources of novel information (Burt, 1992; Granovet-
ter, 1983). People in such privileged positions are brokers, effectively exploiting the flows of
information, connecting disconnected others, and bridging across structural holes, the “empty
spaces in social structure” (Burt, 2007, p. 16).
Brokers are even more crucial within criminal networks, which operate in stateless en-
vironments without standard mechanisms regulating transactions and disputes (Kleemans &
de Poot, 2008; Kleemans & Van Koppen, 2014; Paoli, 2002; Reuter, 1983). Social ties giving
access to profitable opportunities determine success within criminal organizations (Kleemans,
2014; Kleemans & Van Koppen, 2014). Contemporarily, criminals have to balance the effect-
ive management of illicit activities with the security of the group (Morselli, Giguère, & Petit,
2007).
Since the 2000s, studies have empirically examined criminal networks (Mancuso,
2014; D. A. Bright, Hughes, & Chalmers, 2012; Malm, Bichler, & Van De Walle, 2010;
2
![Page 3: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Morselli, 2009b; Natarajan, 2006; Varese, 2006b; Morselli & Tremblay, 2004).1 Criminal
leaders are strategic brokers within their networks, often reporting higher scores of between-
ness centrality, a measure capturing how frequently an individual lies on the shortest path be-
tween any other two individuals in the network (Freeman, 1979). In organized crime groups,
embedded in the surrounding social environment, leaders bridge among other criminals but
also among people from legitimate businesses and politics, exploiting ties providing access to
criminal opportunities (Kleemans & Van De Bunt, 1999; Papachristos & Smith, 2014;
Kleemans & Van Koppen, 2014; Vargas, 2014).
Most studies identified criminal leaders through wiretap data. However, many crimi-
nals are wary of telephone interceptions and may minimize telephone use (Agreste, Catanese,
De Meo, Ferrara, & Fiumara, 2016; Calderoni, 2014; Campana & Varese, 2011; Morselli,
2009b). Notoriously, criminals face a efficiency vs. security trade-off, limiting information
sharing so as to prevent detection at the cost of lower efficiency (Morselli et al., 2007). Crimi-
nal leaders often avoided telecommunications, limiting it to forced or unnecessary involve-
ment (Kleemans, Brienen, & Van De Bunt, 2002). Furthermore, leaders may delegate to mid-
dle-level criminals the operational management of risky activities. In some cases, they com-
pensate direct (degree centrality) with indirect connections (betweenness centrality) (Baker &
Faulkner, 1993; Morselli, 2009b). In other cases, centrality fails to capture the status within a
network, as middle-level criminals are the most central individuals (Agreste et al., 2016; D. A.
Bright et al., 2012; Calderoni, 2012; Carley, Krackhardt, & Lee, 2002).
While criminals’ strategies may bias wiretap data, little research has explored the ef-
fectiveness of alternative sources for the identification of leaders (Bouchard & Konarski,
2014; D. A. Bright et al., 2012). Different data may yield different results, particularly when
1 Social network analysis is a statistical method allowing the mapping and measuring of relations among individuals constituting networks. Within a network, the members are the actors and can represent people or other entities; whereas the links show relations between nodes (e.g. telephone calls, friendship, etc.) (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).
3
![Page 4: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
individuals avoid specific channels of communications. Comparison of intelligence, surveil-
lance, and co-offending networks of the same street gang showed that the data provided “fun-
damentally different pictures” (Rostami & Mondani, 2015, p. 16). Research may need to ex-
plore alternative, hardly concealable, behaviors to better identify leaders. The analysis of
meetings may be a promising step in this direction.
Leaders may be unable to minimize meeting participation since meetings are essential
to manage the criminal activities. Two studies showed that mafia leaders took part in more
meetings and had higher values of betweenness centrality than others participants (Calderoni,
2014, 2015). Logistic regressions on leadership successfully classified 92.6% of the individu-
als, with betweenness as the main predictor of leadership. Furthermore, the models were ro-
bust even at early stages of the investigation (Calderoni, 2015). Given their high betweenness,
mafia bosses participated in meetings where most other individuals were absent, a pattern typ-
ical of brokers. However, the results were based on one case study and lacked a direct com-
parison with the corresponding wiretap network.
This study aims at improving the knowledge on criminal leadership by analyzing
meeting and telephone call participation across four distinct organized crime investigations.
The objectives of this study are (1) to analyze criminal leaders’ participation in meetings and
telephone calls; (2) to compare meeting and wiretap networks in identifying leadership roles.
The novel contribution of this work consists in its focus on criminal leadership, a surprisingly
under researched field in criminology, despite leaders being among the few high-achievers in
crime. Our new study provides a novel examination of the relations among meeting participa-
tion, leadership, and brokerage, and a systematic comparison between wiretap and meeting
networks on the four cases. The results show that leaders minimize telephone use and favor
indirect connectivity, particularly in meetings, revealing a brokering position which gives
them strategic advantages. Criminal leadership is thus the result of specific social opportunity
4
![Page 5: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
structures, where leaders can hardly avoid participating in certain meetings. This makes them
vulnerable to identification through logistic regressions.
The rest of the article is structured as follows: the second section presents the case
studies and the analytical approach; the third section describes the results; the fourth one dis-
cusses the findings as well as their limitations. The final section concludes with some consid-
erations for future research.
2. Methodology
2.1. The case studies and the organization of the ‘Ndrangheta
This analysis focused on four large investigations tackling groups belonging to the
‘Ndrangheta, an Italian mafia from Calabria (a southern Italian region). Examination of the
‘Ndrangheta is important beyond the borders of Calabria because it has expanded to several
Italian regions (Transcrime, 2013; Varese, 2006a), and countries (Germany, Switzerland,
Canada, and Australia) (Calderoni, Berlusconi, Garofalo, Giommoni, & Sarno, 2016;
Campana, 2013; KLPD, 2011; Sciarrone & Storti, 2014; Sergi, 2015). The investigations
tackled groups in Calabria (Operation Crimine, 2010), Lombardy (Operation Infinito, 2010),
Piedmont (Operation Minotauro, 2011), and Emilia-Romagna (Operation Aemilia, 2015).
They lasted for several years and were conducted by the specialized anti-mafia prosecutor’s
offices and anti-mafia police units of the Carabinieri.2
In all operations, the main charge was the offence of mafia association (Art. 416-bis of
the Italian Criminal Code), with a focus on establishing the existence and internal structure of
the groups including their leadership. In addition, each investigation concerned dozens of mi-
nor charges for e.g. violence, extortion, loan sharking, corruption, possession of weapons and
2 The cases were the most exceptional actions in recent years against the ‘Ndrangheta in Italy. After the arrest of nearly six hundred people, the courts confirmed the charges and convicted most defendants for Infinito, Crimine, and Minotauro. In April 2016, the first grade trial for Aemilia also confirmed the charges.
5
![Page 6: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
drug trafficking. The cases are thus particularly useful for assessing the participation of crimi-
nals in wiretaps and meetings, especially because of the internal structure of the ‘Ndrangheta,
based on blood ties and formal hierarchy.
The organization of the ‘Ndrangheta primarily revolves around blood kinship (Paoli,
2003; Varese, 2006a). Affiliates linked by blood ties or marriages form a ‘ndrina; several
‘ndrine in the same geographic area form a locale, an autonomous group which controls a
specific territory (Sergi & Lavorgna, 2016; Serenata, 2014; Paoli, 2003). Even far from the
home territory, the ‘Ndrangheta replicates its distinctive structure through affiliation cere-
monies and a well-defined internal hierarchy (KLPD, 2011; Transcrime, 2013; Campana,
2013; Sciarrone & Storti, 2014; Sergi, 2015; Calderoni et al., 2016). The hierarchy comprises
offices (cariche) and ranks (doti) (Paoli, 2003, p. 46). Each locale has offices charged with
specific duties and powers. The most important include capolocale (the boss of the locale),
caposocietà (the deputy boss), mastro di giornata (“day master”, ensuring the flow of infor-
mation), contabile (“accountant”, managing of the common funds of the locale). The offices
are elective, although often monopolized by powerful individuals or families, and only high-
rank affiliates can compete for high-level offices (Paoli, 2003, pp. 46–51). The ranks (doti)
correspond to the individual’s status within the organization, like the steps in the ‘Ndrangheta
career. The award of a higher rank requires the agreement of the most important Calabrian af-
filiates, and only top-ranked individuals can aspire to high offices (Paoli, 2003, 1994).
Given the objective of proving the structure of mafia groups, the four investigations
carefully charted the internal hierarchy of the ‘Ndrangheta. The investigative files were useful
sources for the gathering of data on the criminal networks and their leadership. The sources
for the case studies were four pre-trial court orders, judicial documents similar to arrest war-
rants (Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Reggio Calabria, 2010; Tribunale di
6
![Page 7: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Bologna, 2015; Tribunale di Milano, 2010; Tribunale di Torino, 2011).3 The data gathering
consisted in the manual extraction and coding of every individual and event (telephone call or
meeting) mentioned in the documents. Different researchers independently collected and vali-
dated the data to ensure consistency.4 The analysis focused on time periods with constant law
enforcement surveillance.5
The source generated three datasets per case study: one with individual attributes, and
two with relational data on meetings and telephone calls, respectively. The individual at-
tributes comprised name, year of birth, locale of affiliation, office, the number of events at-
tended, mafia charge (whether the suspect was charged for mafia association), leadership
roles, and additional information (e.g. arrested, murdered). The datasets on meetings and tele-
phone calls recorded the date, place, and hour of the event, and the number and identity of
participants.
2.2. The classification of leaders
The identification of leaders relied on direct evidence from the criminals (e.g. content of wire-
taps, audio or video surveillance) and was thus independent from the prosecutor’s judgement
or network position. During several conversations the suspects reviewed in detail the formal
hierarchy of the different ‘Ndrangheta locali. Remarkably, the classification was independent
from the actual participation in meetings or telephone calls, since a court would dismiss any
such argument for lack of evidence.
3 In Italy, specialized judges in every court issue such orders upon request of the prosecution. The orders aim to impose pre-trial restrictions against the suspects by motivated decision (challengeable before other courts). Especially for large investigations these documents amount to hundreds of pages and include detailed information on all suspects’ activities. The literature has often used these sources for analyzing criminal networks (Varese, 2006b; Campana & Varese, 2011; Scaglione, 2011; Berlusconi, 2013).4 Consistency checks included removal of duplicate events, synthesis of incomplete events, exclusion of uncorroborated events.5 Selected time spans were mid-2011 to 2012 for Aemilia; 2007 to mid-2010 for Crimine; 2008 to early 2010 for Infinito; 2007 to early 2011 for Minotauro. The selection entailed the exclusion of only few events and marginal individuals.
7
![Page 8: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The variable “leaders” identifies only the most important criminals in the four case
studies (leader=1; non-leader =0). Operations Infinito, Crimine, and Minotauro tackled more
than one locale, so that “leaders” includes only the two highest offices of each locale – the
boss (capolocale) and the deputy boss (caposocietà) – because they may sometimes overlap
(Paoli, 2003, p. 49).6 Conversely, Operation Aemilia focused only on one ‘ndrina, and “lead-
ers” included six senior suspects considered the bosses by the court based on direct evidence
of their roles within the group.7 The precautionary selection resulted in only a few “leaders” in
each case, from 6 in Aemilia to 25 in Infinito (5%-14% of the individuals in the networks)
(Table A in the Annex).8
To ensure the robustness and reliability of the results, the analyses also considered an
alternative classification comprising “leaders & organizers”. These included all individuals
classified as “leaders”, but also other individuals with high ranks. In Infinito, Crimine, and
Minotauro “leaders & organizers” included the bosses, the deputy boss, and the main charges
for each locale (i.e. contabile, and mastro di giornata);9 in Aemilia, they comprised five sus-
pects labelled “organizers” by the court. As a result, “leaders & organizers” were 11 in Ae-
milia, 31 in Crimine, 34 in Infinito, and 33 in Minotauro.
6 In Infinito, “leaders” includes also two individuals responsible for a special body (“la Lombardia”) tasked with the coordination between Calabria and Lombardy.7 At the end of 2018, a final judgement confirmed the charges and convicted the five out of six leaders. A separate, first grade judgement convicted the last leader.8 Given the complexity of the investigations, some leaders made only sporadic appearances. To ensure that the analyses focused on the leaders actually managing their own criminal groups, a few leaders were classified as non-leaders for two reasons which may have biased the analyses. First, some were leaders affiliated to locali outside the scope of the investigation: for example, ‘Ndrangheta leaders from other areas (Calabria, but also other Italian regions and countries of the world) who seldom interacted with the groups under investigation. Second, other leaders were incapacitated to participate in events, e.g. due to imprisonment or death at an early stage of the investigations.9 In Minotauro, “leaders & organizers” also comprised former holders of the offices (only this investigation identified them), and the members of the “Crimine”, a special unit responsible for violent actions.
8
![Page 9: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
2.3. Network measures and logistic regression models
Relational data generated two, two-mode affiliation matrixes recording individuals’ participa-
tion in meetings and wiretaps. In turn, two-mode matrixes generated one-mode and undirected
adjacency matrixes reporting individuals’ co-participations in events and allowing assessment
of networks’ topology (Table A and Figure A in the Annex) (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).10
These also enabled computation of actors’ centrality measures, including: degree centrality,
measuring an individual’s number of direct connections; valued degree centrality, showing
the number of co-participations in events; betweenness centrality, measuring the extent to
which a node is in the shortest path between a pair of individuals (Wasserman & Faust,
1994).11 All measures were computed on binary networks, then normalized (max
score=1,000) to improve readability, except valued degree (valued networks and raw scores)
(Table 1). A preliminary exploration of centrality calculated the ratios between leaders’ and
non-leaders’ scores.
The identification of leaders relied on Firth’s logistic regressions to assess the proba-
bility of being a leader given the values of some predictors. Firth’s method fits data better
than traditional logistic regressions, where maximum likelihood estimations suffer from a
small number of cases in one of the two categories (i.e. only few leaders in networks), as it re-
duces such bias through penalized likelihood and overcomes the problem of separation (Al-
lison, 2013; Firth, 1993).12
10 All network analysis operations were performed using UCINET 6 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). 11 Preliminary explorations included also closeness and eigenvector centrality, but these measures reported limited differences between leaders and non-leaders.12 Complete or quasi-complete separation occurs when the outcome variable separates a predictor variable. For instance, in most observations leader=1 corresponds to Mafia charge=1.
9
![Page 10: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Variables by Network
Network Leadership roles
Events Mafia charge Degree Valued Degree Betweenness
Mean St. dev. Mean St. dev. Mean St. dev. Mean St. dev. Mean St. dev.Aemilia meeting
Leaders 29.7 11.2 1.0 0.0 240.3 43.6 105.2 17.7 71.2 21.5Others 3.3 5.9 0.2 0.4 45.6 55.4 14.0 20.3 5.5 21.2
Aemilia wiretap
Leaders 64.8 50.5 1.0 0.0 95.9 53.3 42.8 29.7 152.4 132.5Others 5.0 7.7 0.3 0.4 10.3 11.4 7.2 18.1 4.4 15.9
Crimine meeting
Leaders 18.8 31.5 1.0 0.2 78.0 89.4 59.4 78.5 48.1 18.8Others 2.6 4.7 0.2 0.4 37.1 50.2 19.4 24.7 1.7 2.6
Crimine wiretap
Leaders 33.4 71.1 1.0 0.0 45.9 84.5 33.8 72.2 112.8 33.4Others 5.1 7.6 0.2 0.4 9.5 10.0 5.2 7.8 16.8 5.1
Infinito meeting
Leaders 28.0 33.8 1.0 0.2 174.9 78.2 107.3 76.5 44.0 28.0Others 3.9 5.5 0.5 0.5 52.8 49.9 20.4 26.4 3.0 3.9
Infinito wiretap Leaders 9.8 9.8 1.0 0.2 33.8 25.4 9.8 9.8 102.1 9.8Others 3.3 3.5 0.6 0.5 12.4 9.6 3.3 3.5 19.6 3.3
Minotauro meeting
Leaders 39.1 42.2 0.9 0.3 383.0 127.8 376.4 202.6 30.5 31.0Others 4.0 6.2 0.3 0.5 105.1 112.1 57.1 77.6 2.0 7.2
Minotauro wiretap
Leaders 40.1 81.9 0.9 0.3 40.5 51.4 40.5 82.6 84.6 130.9Others 8.7 24.3 0.2 0.4 8.2 13.1 8.9 24.5 6.0 29.5
Firth’s regressions explored the capacity of meeting and wiretap networks to identify
leaders. The dependent variable for each network was “leaders” or “leaders & organizers”
(where leaders=1; non-leaders=0). The main predictors included the centrality measures better
discriminating leaders based on the preliminary exploration of the leaders/ non-leaders ratios
and often used in the literature (Morselli, 2009b): in meetings these were betweenness and
valued degree, in wiretaps betweenness and degree centrality.13 The regressions controlled for
possible investigation biases due to the non-random sample. “Mafia charge” considered that
investigators deliberately focused the surveillance on suspect mafia members. The number of
events controlled for possible additional biases, e.g. that individuals merely participating in
more events were mistaken for leaders, or that the law enforcement likely prioritized alleged
leaders, thus resulting in higher frequencies.
3. Results
3.1. Network topology and leaders’ behavior
The ‘Ndrangheta leaders minimized involvement in wiretaps, either completely avoiding tele-
phones or using them in a manner hardly distinguishable from non-leaders. They generally fa-13 In wiretap networks, an individual’s participations in telephone calls often corresponds to the valued degree (number of co-participations) as most calls involve only two people.
10
![Page 11: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
vored indirect connectivity, particularly in meeting networks, with betweenness scores nearly
eighteen times higher than non-leaders.
All the networks were loosely connected (Table A in the Annex, density ranging be-
tween 1.2% and 11.6%), with meeting networks more cohesive than wiretap networks.14 The
participation of mafia leaders to the networks reveals three specific patterns. First, mafia lead-
ers were generally more present in meetings than in wiretaps, notwithstanding the higher
number of wiretaps. While always present in meeting networks, some leaders were absent
from three out of four wiretap networks. Specifically, only 12 out of 24 leaders participated in
telephone calls in Crimine, 23 out of 25 in Infinito, and 13 out of 15 in Minotauro. Overall,
23% of leaders were missing in the wiretap networks.
Second, even when participating in telephone calls, leaders showed some preference
for meetings. Table 2 and Figure 1 report the leaders’/non-leaders’ ratios in the average num-
ber of events and centrality scores. Differences were assessed through Student’s independent
samples, two-tail, t-tests performed through UCINET on 10,000 permutations to account for
the dependency among network data. Unsurprisingly, leaders were always more active than
non-leaders, e.g. participating in more events (on average about 6.6 times more across the
eight networks, first column in Table 2), and having a larger number of contacts (on average
four times higher, as expressed by the degree centrality, second column in Table 2). However,
those leaders present in wiretaps used telephones five times more than non-leaders, whereas
all leaders attended 8.3 times more meetings than non-leaders.
14 Across the four investigations, 48.6% and 36.1% of individuals in meetings and wiretap networks, respectively, took part in one event. Participants in 10+ events amounted to 9.5% and 15.7%, respectively.
11
![Page 12: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Table 2. Ratios between Leaders and Non-Leaders in the Mean Number of Events and the Centrality Measures by Network
Network N. of events Degree Valued Degree BetweennessAemilia meeting 8.9*** 5.3*** 7.5*** 13.0***Aemilia wiretap 5.9** 5.6*** 5.9** 12.1**Crimine meeting 7.2*** 2.1*** 3.1*** 28.9***Crimine wiretap 6.5*** 4.8*** 6.4*** 6.7**Infinito meeting 7.1*** 3.3*** 5.3*** 14.7***Infinito wiretap 3.0*** 2.7*** 3*** 5.2***Minotauro meeting 9.8*** 3.6*** 6.6*** 14.9***Minotauro wiretap 4.6** 4.9*** 4.5** 14.1***Avg. all networks 6.6 4.0 5.3 13.7Avg. meeting networks 8.3 3.6 5.6 17.9Avg. wiretap networks 5.0 4.5 5.0 9.5+ p≤0,1, * p≤0,05, ** p≤0,01, *** p≤0,001
Third, leaders preferred indirect over direct connections, with remarkably high be-
tweenness centrality scores (on average nearly fourteen times those of non-leaders, vs. four
times for degree centrality). The prevalence of indirect connectivity was stronger for meeting
than for wiretap networks: while leaders’ betweenness centrality was 17.9 and 9.5 times that
of non-leaders across meeting and wiretaps networks, degree centrality was instead only 3.6
and 4.5 times higher, respectively (Table 2).
Figure 1. Ratios between Leaders and Non-Leaders in the Mean Number of Events and the Centrality Measures by Network
AemiliaMeetings
AemiliaWiretaps
CrimineMeetings
CrimineWiretaps
InfinitoMeetings
InfinitoWiretaps
MinotauroMeetings
MinotauroWiretaps
-5
5
15
25Events
Degree
Valued Degree
Betweenness
12
![Page 13: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
3.2. Comparison between meeting and wiretap networks in identifying leaders
Across all the four case studies, models based on meetings identified mafia leaders better than
models on wiretaps. The regressions with “leaders” as a dependent variable relied on six spec-
ifications (Table 3).15 Models on meetings provided better fitting models and higher success in
the classification of leaders than models on wiretaps. Tjur’s R2 revealed an acceptable or good
fit of the models for meeting networks, and a poorer fit for wiretaps (Table 3).16 On average
Tjur’s R2 for meetings was almost double than for wiretaps. Meetings also provided better
classifications of leaders than wiretaps (average successful leader identification of 26.74% vs.
9.13%, respectively, Table 3). Comparing the best models among all specifications, meetings
identified almost three times more leaders for Aemilia and Crimine, and more than twice for
Infinito and Minotauro (Table 4).
15 Specification I only included betweenness centrality, given its importance in the literature and in the analysis of the ratios between leaders and non-leaders. Specification II included only control variables to assess the impact of the mere participation in events and the possible biases by investigation. Specification III comprised betweenness and mafia charge, while specification IV betweenness and both controls. Specification V relied on betweenness, mafia charge, and valued degree for meetings and degree for wiretaps. Specification VI presented the complete models. Exploration of additional specifications yielded consistent results.16 Tjur’s R2, or Tjur’s coefficient of discrimination, varies from 0 to 1 as the prediction improves. It calculates the mean of the predicted probabilities of an event for each category of the dependent variable (i.e. whether or not a member is a leader) and then it takes the difference between the two (Tjur, 2009).
13
![Page 14: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Table 3. Firth’s Logistic Regression Results for “Leaders” for Meeting and Wiretap Networks, Odds Ratios
Network Variables I II III IV V VI
Aemilia Meeting
Betweenness 1.032** 1.019* 0.973 0.995 0.977Valued Degree 1.050** 1.036+Mafia charge 11.45 21.49* 10.37 4.266 4.007
Meetings attended 1.101** 1.204** 1.108Tjur’s R2 0.114 0.327 0.169 0.424 0.444 0.508
Predicted leaders (%) 0.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 16.7 50.0
Aemilia Wiretap
Betweenness 1.011* 1.006+ 1.042 0.99 1.016Degree 1.037 1.098*
Mafia charge 26.58* 24.78* 23.61* 18.20+ 9.441Tel. calls 1.014+ 0.911 0.871*Tjur’s R2 0.068 0.11 0.132 0.232 0.15 0.318
Predicted leaders (%) 0 0 0 16.667 0 0
Crimine Meeting
Betweenness 1.076*** 1.048* 1.056+ 1.060* 1.058+Valued Degree 0.993 0.997Mafia charge 52.29*** 45.89*** 48.15*** 45.04*** 46.51***
Meetings attended 1.044* 0.967 0.969Tjur’s R2 0.224 0.263 0.324 0.317 0.329 0.318
Predicted leaders (%) 20.8 16.7 20.8 20.8 25.0 25.0
Crimine Wiretap
Betweenness 1.007*** 1.004 1.001 1.002 1.002Degree 1.007 0.979
Mafia charge 113.1** 105.0** 107.1** 104.6** 108.3** Tel. calls 1.012 1.009 1.034Tjur’s R2 0.087 0.284 0.278 0.289 0.287 0.296
Predicted leaders (%) 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3
Infinito Meeting
Betweenness 1.099*** 1.079*** 1.038* 1.045** 1.042*Valued Degree 1.022** 1.020+Mafia charge 5.947* 6.231* 4.737+ 3.659 3.7
Meetings attended 1.157*** 1.096* 1.011Tjur’s R2 0.417 0.405 0.421 0.453 0.473 0.471
Predicted leaders (%) 40 44 40 44 44 40
Infinito Wiretap
Betweenness 1.014*** 1.012*** 1.008* 1.005 1.004Degree 1.053* 1.083+
Mafia charge 4.763+ 4.761+ 3.923 3.41 3.459Tel. calls 1.166*** 1.100+ 0.915Tjur’s R2 0.181 0.2 0.196 0.233 0.263 0.264
Predicted leaders (%) 17.4 13.0 17.4 13.0 17.4 17.4
Minotauro Meeting
Betweenness 1.077*** 1.060*** 0.996 1.015 1.001Valued Degree 1.010*** 1.008*Mafia charge 24.23+ 9.936* 26.16+ 4.525 7.451
Meetings attended 1.096*** 1.099** 1.031Tjur’s R2 0.247 0.326 0.247 0.325 0.392 0.392
Predicted lea (%) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.7 33.3
Minotauro Wiretap
Betweenness 1.012*** 1.011** 1.024 1.002 0.996Degree 1.023 1.090*
Mafia charge 25.46*** 23.98*** 18.22** 25.28*** 15.50** Tel. calls 1.011+ 0.981 0.969* Tjur’s R2 0.122 0.128 0.206 0.238 0.201 0.262
Predicted leaders (%) 15.4 0.0 7.7 15.4 0.0 15.4+ p≤0.1 level; * p≤0.05 level; ** p≤0.01 level; *** p≤0.001 level.
Given that the number of leaders varies across networks, Table 4 and Figure 2 com-
pare the correct classifications with the random probability of identifying a leader (bench-
mark) across the eight networks. Meetings identified leaders between four and nineteen times
better than the benchmark in the best models. Conversely, wiretaps ranged between 1.2 (for
Infinito, thus only slightly better than random selection) and 5.6 (for Aemilia, although all
other specifications failed to identify any leader).
14
![Page 15: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Table 4. Ratios between the Share of Leaders Correctly Predicted by Firth’s Logistic Regressions and the Share of Leaders Correctly Predicted by Random Probability (Benchmark) by NetworkNetwork N.
of leadersBenchmark
(%)Regressions’ specifications
I II III IV V VIAemilia Meeting 6 2.6 Correct identifications (%) 0.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 16.7 50
Ratio correct identifications/benchmark 0.0 6.3 0.0 12.6 6.3 18.9Aemilia Wiretap 6 3.0 Correct identifications (%) 0 0 0 16.67 0 0
Ratio correct identifications/benchmark 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0Crimine Meeting 24 5.1 Correct identifications (%) 20.8 16.7 20.8 20.8 25.0 25.0
Ratio correct identifications/benchmark 4.1 3.2 4.1 4.1 4.9 4.9Aemilia Wiretap 12 5.8 Correct identifications (%) 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3
Ratio correct identifications/benchmark 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4Infinito Meeting 25 9.9 Correct identifications (%) 40.0 44.0 40.0 44.0 44.0 40.0
Ratio correct identifications/benchmark 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.0Infinito Wiretap 23 14.1 Correct identifications (%) 17.4 13.0 17.4 13.0 17.4 17.4
Ratio correct identifications/benchmark 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.2Crimine Meeting 15 4.0 Correct identifications (%) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 26.7 33.3
Ratio correct identifications/benchmark 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.7 8.4Minotauro Wiretap 13 4.8 Correct identifications (%) 15.4 0.0 7.7 15.4 0.0 15.4
Ratio correct identifications/benchmark 3.2 0.0 1.6 3.2 0.0 3.2Best identifications in bold
Figure 2. Ratios between the Share of Leaders Correctly Predicted by Firth’s Logistic Regressions and the Share of Leaders Correctly Predicted by Random Probability (Benchmark) by Network
I II III IV V VI02468
101214161820
Aemilia MeetingCrimine MeetingInfinito MeetingMinotauro MeetingAemilia WiretapCrimine WiretapInfinito WiretapMinotauro Wiretap
The predictors of leadership showed different patterns between meeting and wiretap
networks. In meetings, centrality measures were statistically significant and positively associ-
ated with the probability of being a leader, particularly for betweenness. For Crimine and In-
finito, betweenness increased the probability of being a leader in all specifications, all vari-
ables constant (between +4.8% and +7.6% in Crimine and between +3.8% and +9.9% in In-
finito). In Aemilia and Minotauro, betweenness was statistically significant only for specifica-
tions I and III, possibly due to the small numbers of leaders and the collinearity among inde-
15
![Page 16: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
pendent variables.17 Also valued degree increased the probability of being a leader, except for
Crimine (specifications V and VI).
In wiretaps, centrality showed an unclear pattern. Betweenness often lost its predictive
capacity as soon as other variables were included. Only in half of the cases did degree central-
ity contribute to the identification of leaders. In fact, in most wiretap networks centrality mea-
sures and controls were strongly correlated (Pearson’s R often above a 0.850), resulting in
lowered reliability whenever multiple predictors entered the models.
3.3. Identifying “leaders” and “leaders and organizers”
Additional regressions tested the robustness of the results by identifying “leaders & organiz-
ers” to mitigate the problem of small number of “leaders”, especially in Aemilia.18 Table 5
compares specifications III to VI from Table 4 with four new specifications (VII to X) with
the same setup but “leaders & organizers” as the dependent variable. The new specifications
fit the data better than those for “leaders”, with improved Tjur’s’ R2 values. Except for Crim-
ine, also the share of correctly identified leaders increased, peaking at 63.6% for Aemilia,
58.5% for Infinito and 42.4% for Minotauro (Table 5). As the share of correct identifications
increased, so did the benchmark (i.e. probability of randomly identifying “leaders & organiz-
ers”). The higher benchmark offset the improved identification successes, and the ratios be-
tween correct identifications and the benchmark increased only for Aemilia, decreased for
Crimine, and Minotauro, and were stable for Infinito.
17 Aemilia comprised only six leaders, making it hard to achieve reliable estimations. Moreover, betweenness strongly correlated with the number of meetings (Pearson’s R 0.914), causing problems for collinearity in the specifications. Similarly, in Minotauro betweenness and meetings were closely associated (Pearson’s R 0.839) and the inclusion of meetings in specifications IV and VI made betweenness not statistically significant.18 This subsection presents results for meeting networks for reasons of simplicity. Exploration for wiretap networks yielded results similar to those presented in the previous subsection, with wiretaps models performing significantly worse than meetings.
16
![Page 17: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Table 5. Firth’s Logistic Regression Results for “Leaders” and “Leaders & Organizers” for Meeting Networks Only, Odds RatiosNetwork Variables
Leaders Leaders & organizers
III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Aemilia meetings
Betweenness 1.019* 0.973 0.995 0.977 1.062*** 1.061* 1.050* 1.063*Valued Degree 1.050** 1.036+ 1.01 1.018Mafia charge 21.49* 10.37 4.266 4.007 16.27+ 16.06+ 11.76 10.64
Meetings attended 1.204** 1.108 0.999 0.94Tjur’s R2 0.169 0.424 0.444 0.508 0.638 0.63 0.628 0.613
Predicted leaders (%) 0.0 33.3 16.7 50.0 63.6 63.6 54.5 54.5Predicted/Benchmark 0.0 12.6 6.3 18.9 13.1 13.1 11.3 11.3
Crimine meetings
Betweenness 1.048* 1.056+ 1.060* 1.058+ 1.055* 1.078* 1.058+ 1.070*Valued Degree 0.993 0.997 0.998 1.006Mafia charge 45.89*** 48.15*** 45.04*** 46.51*** 68.46*** 76.50*** 66.47*** 74.47***
Meetings attended 0.967 0.969 0.934 0.931Tjur’s R2 0.324 0.317 0.329 0.318 0.347 0.348 0.348 0.349
Predicted leaders (%) 20.8 20.8 25.0 25.0 22.6 22.6 22.6 22.6Predicted/Benchmark 4.1 4.1 4.9 4.9 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
Infinito meetings
Betweenness 1.079*** 1.038* 1.045** 1.042* 1.121*** 1.047+ 1.050** 1.050*Valued Degree 1.022** 1.020+ 1.035*** 1.036**Mafia charge 6.231* 4.737+ 3.659 3.7 8.356* 7.193* 4.399 4.326
Meetings attended 1.096* 1.011 1.141** 0.994Tjur’s R2 0.421 0.453 0.473 0.471 0.481 0.526 0.573 0.570
Predicted leaders (%) 40 44.0 44.0 40.0 47.1 55.9 58.8 58.8Predicted/Benchmark 3.5 4.4 4.4 4.0 3.5 4.1 4.4 4.4
Minotauro meetings
Betweenness 1.060*** 0.996 1.015 1.001 1.110*** 1.011 1.041* 1.019Valued Degree 1.010*** 1.008* 1.008*** 1.005+Mafia charge 9.936* 26.16+ 4.525 7.451 38.01*** 51.49* 24.84** 52.98*
Meetings attended 1.099** 1.031 1.118** 1.05Tjur’s R2 0.247 0.325 0.392 0.392 0.377 0.435 0.451 0.452
Predicted leaders (%) 20.0 20.0 26.7 33.3 21.2 33.3 42.4 39.4Predicted/Benchmark 5.0 5.0 6.7 8.4 2.4 3.8 4.8 4.5
+ The correlation is statistically significant at p≤0.1 level.* The correlation is statistically significant at p≤0.05 level.** The correlation is statistically significant at p≤0.01 level.*** The correlation is statistically significant at p≤0.001 level
Betweenness centrality remained statistically significant and positively associated with
the leadership. In particular, it improved in Aemilia, where leaders passed from 6 to 11, possi-
bly stabilizing the estimations and improving their reliability (betweenness always statistically
significant and increasing the probability of identifying a leader by 5%-6.3%, all other vari-
ables constant, specification X in Table 5). In Minotauro, betweenness was statistically signif-
icant only in specifications VII and IX. Whenever the model included the number of meet-
ings, betweenness lost statistical significance due to the already mentioned correlation with
the meetings. Valued degree centrality confirmed its inconsistent pattern: not statistically sig-
nificant in Aemilia and Crimine, and positive and statistically significant in Infinito and Mino-
tauro.
17
![Page 18: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Overall, the models on “leaders” and “leaders & organizers” provided consistent re-
sults. In meetings, betweenness positively influenced the probability of being a leader even
when controlling for other variables. Contrarily, in wiretaps, betweenness often provided re-
dundant information. When focusing on “leaders & organizers”, the larger number of leaders
improved the predictive power of the models, enabling correct identification of between one
third and nearly two thirds of leaders and confirming the positive impact of betweenness.
4. Discussion
4.1. Criminal leaders’ brokerage in meetings
The ‘Ndrangheta leaders seem to prioritize security over efficiency by avoiding or minimizing
telephone calls and prioritizing indirect connectivity (Morselli et al., 2007). Indeed, direct
connections often involve a higher risk of detection and conviction (Baker & Faulkner, 1993;
Morselli, 2009a; Morselli, Masias, Crespo, & Laengle, 2013). Studies have shown that crimi-
nal leaders often avoid telephones for fear of detection (Kleemans et al., 2002; Agreste et al.,
2016). Leaders may often let middle-level members directly manage riskier tasks (Hofmann
& Gallupe, 2015). The more skilled and high-ranked individuals are indirectly involved in
criminal activities and that also non-leaders record high degree centrality (Baker & Faulkner,
1993; Calderoni, 2012; Morselli, 2009b, Chapter 8 and 9, 2009a).
However, criminals can hardly balance efficiency and security, as “covert networks
are not generally capable of trading efficiency for security” (Morselli et al., 2007, p. 151).
Leaders cannot entirely delegate criminal activities, owing to limited possibilities to control
subordinates (Paoli, 2002; Reuter & Haaga, 1989; Reuter & Rubinstein, 1982). Contrarily,
they often have to take direct action, especially in complex criminal activities requiring more
intense interaction (“high information-processing needs” Baker & Faulkner, 1993, p. 854;
“less time-to-task” Morselli et al., 2007, pp. 151–152). Consequently, direct and indirect con-
18
![Page 19: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
nectivity are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are often correlated (Calderoni, 2012, p.
342; Morselli, 2009b, p. 18). Leaders often balance the high number of direct contacts with
high indirect connectivity (Morselli, 2010). This is the case also for the ‘Ndrangheta net-
works, where leaders reported higher degree and betweenness than non-leaders. Nevertheless,
the absence of one in five leaders from wiretaps and the lower ratios in the participation in
telephone calls avoidance suggest that they may resort to other, less visible, channels to con-
trol the criminal organizations. Results from the meeting networks support this argument.
Meetings may provide leaders with a way to balance security and efficiency. First, in
the four investigations, meetings often occurred in secure environment such as open-air spa-
ces or separate rooms in restaurants and bars. Leaders often prefer meetings in person to tele-
phone use due to lower risks of interception (Agreste et al., 2016; Calderoni, 2012; Kleemans
et al., 2002). In the ‘Ndrangheta networks, leaders participated in meetings 8 time more than
non-leaders (vs. only 5 times, and 23% of leaders were completely absent, in wiretaps). Sec-
ond, meetings enable direct interaction, more efficient than telephones in managing delicate
situations (e.g. murders, competition for offices and ranks).19 The mafias have a tradition of
formal summits for strategic planning and dispute settlement (Paoli, 2003, p. 59).20 Third,
mafia meetings often have social and cultural functions where leaders play an important role
(affiliation rituals, ceremonies and important celebrations) (Gambetta, 1993, Chapter 6; Paoli,
2003, Chapter 2). In the ‘Ndrangheta, these events strengthen the internal trust and the mem-
19 In Infinito the investigators filmed a ‘Ndrangheta meeting in a town nearby Milan, which took place on 31 October 2009 in a social club for elderly people named after Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, two judges killed by Cosa Nostra in 1992. The meeting aimed at appointing the new Mastro generale. 23 men sat at a horseshoe-shaped table, eating dinner and discussing the appointment. All the leaders of the locali approved the candidate and subsequently celebrated with a toast.20 For example, a major event in the ‘Ndrangheta is the annual meeting at the Sanctuary of Santa Maria di Polsi, a mountain town in Calabria (Paoli, 2003, p. 53). In Operation Crimine, the investigation recorded for first time the discussions at the Polsi meeting of September 2010, where more than 300 affiliates were present. Only highest-ranked individuals from locali around the world participate discussing internal organization, activities, and awarding new high ranks. Crimine was the first time the Italian authorities has managed to monitor the Polsi meeting, showing how carefully managed meetings may provide better protection from investigations than telephone conversations.
19
![Page 20: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
bers’ sense of belonging (Sergi & Lavorgna, 2016; Paoli, 2003; Simmel, 1950, Chapter 4).21
Last, criminal leaders do not attend just more meetings than non-leaders: their outstanding be-
tweenness scores highlight a pattern typical of brokers.
The ‘Ndrangheta leaders can effectively broker across otherwise disconnected people.
Studies on co-offending networks have shown that non-redundant contacts provide higher
earnings (Morselli & Tremblay, 2004) and more offending versatility (McGloin & Piquero,
2010). Brokering skill is a key factor in the success of career criminals in the drug trade
(Morselli, 2001), in the American Mafia (Morselli, 2003), and in Dutch organized crime
(Kleemans & de Poot, 2008, pp. 82–92). Leaders’ high brokerage yields not only security but
also closer control over the criminal activities (Morselli, 2009b, Chapter 8 and 9). The evi-
dence on the benefits of brokerage for criminals supports the general claim by social sciences
that “brokers do better” (Burt, 2007, p. 7; Morselli, 2009a, p. 16): brokers are higher-achiev-
ers and well-respected (Boissevain, 1974), able to exploit new opportunities (Granovetter,
1973), and generally advantaged “in terms of breadth of knowledge, early knowledge, and op-
portunities for strategically coordinating across groups” (Burt, 2007, p. 55).
The brokerage in meetings also enables leaders to fulfil social obligations deriving
from their role. In the ‘Ndrangheta, participation in specific meetings is a prerogative of lead-
ers, who are both willing and obliged to participate (Simmel, 1950, Chapter 4). This concerns
both high-level criminal meetings and social occasions. Presence at these events is a sign of
high status and prestige, and intrinsically associated with leadership (Kleemans et al., 2002;
21 In Infinito leaders of the locali in Lombardy were invited to the wedding between the children of two powerful ‘Ndrangheta dynasties, the Pelle and the Barbaro on 19 August 2009. This was a major event for the ‘Ndrangheta, and Infinito leaders discussed participation and presents at length. Invitations reflected the status and power of a locale, whereas non-invitation showed its weakness.
Furthermore, the largest recorded event during Operation Minotauro was a funeral held on 3 January 2009 in Settimo Torinese. The service concerned the caposocietà (deputy boss) of the locale of Natile di Careri, near Turin, murdered in an attack a few days earlier because of disputes internal to the ‘Ndrangheta. The ceremony was attended by dozens of criminals, who gathered to pay their respects to the deceased boss. Participation in the funeral represented an opportunity to demonstrate criminal standing and reinforce a group cohesion in difficult times.
20
![Page 21: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Paoli, 2002). Failure to participate would miss important decisions, spread gossip, affect the
reputation, and show disrespect. Therefore, meeting participation may often represent a neces-
sity due to the social embeddedness of the ‘Ndrangheta (Kleemans & Van De Bunt, 1999).
Organized criminals are embedded in a network of personal relations providing unequal ac-
cess to information and people. Successful organized crime careers benefit from the “social
opportunity structure”, i.e. “social ties providing access to profitable criminal opportunities”
(Kleemans & de Poot, 2008, p. 75).
These considerations may be extended to other criminal groups. The four ‘Ndrangheta
groups revealed remarkably similar patterns, despite being based in different regions and in-
vestigated by separate prosecutor’s offices. The internal functioning of the ‘Ndrangheta may
be similar in countries like Australia, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands (Calderoni et al.,
2016; KLPD, 2011; Sciarrone & Storti, 2014; Sergi, 2015, 2018). Furthermore, these patterns
may be common to the leaders of different groups, ranging from other mafias to drug traffick-
ing organizations, organized street gangs and terrorist groups (Decker & Pyrooz, 2015). First,
most criminal groups face the efficiency/security trade-off (D. Bright, Koskinen, & Malm,
2018; Morselli et al., 2007; Simmel, 1950, Chapter 4; Waniek, Michalak, Rahwan, &
Wooldridge, 2017). Security may discourage telephone use and favor more secure communi-
cations strategies. Meetings may provide more secure communication within most criminal
groups. It is surprising that the literature has rarely analyzed meetings, and has never com-
pared meeting with wiretap or other networks. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
study systematically comparing meetings and wiretaps across four cases of the same criminal
organization. Second, brokerage and social embeddedness provide advantages to most social
groups (Granovetter, 1973; Boissevain, 1974; Burt, 2007). Brokerage benefits criminal lead-
ers in the mafias (DellaPosta, 2017; Lo, 2010; Papachristos & Smith, 2014; Wang, 2017),
drug trafficking organizations (Dorn, Murji, & South, 1992; Pearson & Hobbs, 2001; Zaitch,
21
![Page 22: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
2002; Decker & Townsend Chapman, 2008), terrorist organizations (Demiroz & Kapucu,
2012; Krebs, 2002), and street gangs (Benson & Decker, 2010; Morselli, 2009b, Chapter 9).
4.2. The identification of leaders
While indicative of the advantages of brokerage, leaders’ participation in meetings can make
them vulnerable to identification. The regression on meetings identify leaders more effec-
tively than wiretaps across all four networks (Table 4 and Figure 2), corroborating previous
works (Calderoni, 2014, 2015).
The findings are also robust to alternative definitions of leaders (Table 5). Logistic re-
gressions on “leaders & organizers” perform similarly to, or even better than, those on “lead-
ers”. These results are due to both statistical and organizational reasons. First, regressions on
“leaders & organizers” enlarge the number of leaders in the logistic regressions, notoriously
affected by few cases in one category of the dependent variable. While Firth’s method par-
tially addresses this problem, the share of “leaders” is still particularly low (around 6% of the
sample), making the estimations difficult.22 “Leaders & organizers” increase the numbers in
the category to about 11%, thus improving the performance of the regressions.23 Second, in
the organizational structure of the ‘Ndrangheta, the power of brokerage is shared by different
office-holders. High betweenness centrality is typical not only of the boss and the deputy boss
of a locale (the only individuals in “leaders”), but also of other criminals holding important
offices (in “leaders & organizers”). Thus betweenness captures the social capital of the most
senior and powerful affiliates (Paoli, 2003, pp. 49–51).
While consistent across the four networks and robust to the variation of the leadership
classification, the regressions correctly classify only some leaders, with some false positives
22 In particular, “leaders” numbered six (about 3% of the total) in Aemilia. Also in Minotauro, leaders numbered fifteen in the meeting network (4% of the total) and thirteen in the wiretap network (4.8%), respectively.23 Unsurprisingly, Aemilia reports the best improvement, as the number of “leaders & organizers” (n=11) nearly doubles the number of “leaders”.
22
![Page 23: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
(non-leaders wrongly classified as leaders) and negatives (leaders mistaken for non-leaders).
This may be due to the secrecy of organized crime activities and the consequent incomplete-
ness of investigative sources. At the same time, it may also reveal the actual distribution of
brokerage capacities across criminals. As in most social groups, formal positions and actual
skills only partially overlap. Few leaders may hold an office despite limited brokerage in the
meeting networks, due to personal conditions (e.g. incapacitated, temporarily arrested) or in-
ternal dynamics (diminished prestige, disputes). These situations may signal the crisis of the
leadership within a criminal network (Morselli & Petit, 2007). Conversely, criminals with no
office may record high brokerage, e.g. younger, ambitious criminals making their way into
the higher offices, or former leaders dismissed from due to internal dynamics (Morselli,
2009b, p. 158).
These considerations are also relevant when considering the risk of reverse causality
in our models, i.e. that leadership determines network position. While the cross-sectional ap-
proach of this study cannot rule out reverse causality by design, there are reasons to contend
that mafia leaders’ social connections enabled them to secure a ‘Ndrangheta office rather than
this driving their links. The literature on brokerage in social networks often points out that so-
cial relations drive success and leadership (Watts, 2004; Burt, 2007). Criminal leadership po-
sitions are due not only to individuals’ characteristics but also to the structure of their per-
sonal networks (Kleemans & de Poot, 2008, p. 91; Kleemans & Van Koppen, 2014, p. 291),
confirming that brokering roles often “describe the consequences of position in social struc-
ture, not the goals that led incumbents to the position” (Burt, 2007, pp. 241, footnote 13) and
that, for criminals, “rank […] is but a prize for knowing how to fit in amongst others”
(Morselli, 2009b, p. 138).24 Lastly, a reverse interpretation could hardly explain the hetero-
geneity in leaders’ centrality observed across the four networks.
24 Morselli described how repeated drug seizures affected N1, the group leader’s position (2009b, Chapter 6). N1’s centrality scores decreased as the law enforcement agencies intercepted more drug consignments, while other criminals organized new shipments, resulting in increased centrality.
23
![Page 24: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
The identification of criminal leaders through meeting networks contributes to the
growing literature on the identification of important actors and network disruption strategies
(Bouchard & Konarski, 2014; D. A. Bright, Greenhill, & Levenkova, 2014; D. A. Bright,
Greenhill, Reynolds, Ritter, & Morselli, 2015; Calderoni, 2012; Carley et al., 2002; Duijn,
Kashirin, & Sloot, 2014; Morselli, 2010; Morselli & Roy, 2008; Robins, 2009; Schwartz &
Rouselle, 2009). Some scholars warn that an excessive focus on network topology (e.g. cen-
trality measures) may be misleading: actors in dark networks are actively trying to hide their
activities (Carley et al., 2002; Robins, 2009); centrality may omit actor-level attributes, like
specific skills, expertise, and demographic factors (D. A. Bright et al., 2015; Schwartz & Rou-
selle, 2009). These works propose integration of network measures with measures of individ-
uals’ attributes. Nevertheless, while offering valuable approaches to the identification of lead-
ers, such methods inevitably imply some degree of discretion in the operationalization of indi-
vidual characteristics; scores and weights are inevitably network-specific and may hardly ap-
ply to other criminal groups without substantial adaptations. Lastly, a study comparing differ-
ent disruption methods (prioritizing both social and human capital) concluded that targeting
based on betweenness was the most efficient strategy (D. Bright, Greenhill, Britz, Ritter, &
Morselli, 2017).
Our study provides a different approach, taking into account the risks of overreliance
on network topology and still avoiding excessively discretionary manipulations. On the one
hand, the results confirmed that overreliance on wiretap data may indeed jeopardize the effec-
tive identification of leaders. Contrarily, meeting data reveal the importance of meeting par-
ticipation for the brokering and social functions of criminal leaders. High indirect connectiv-
ity in meetings may synthesize individuals’ social capital, thus making “the people bridging
structural holes a productive target for destabilizing a criminal network” (Burt, 2007, p. 87).
On the other hand, leader identification through logistic regressions and betweenness central-
24
![Page 25: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
ity is a parsimonious method, without discretion about the scoring and weighting of individu-
als’ attributes. As such, it could be easily replicated to identify leaders within other criminal
groups.
The capacity to effectively identify leaders from meeting networks may have impor-
tant policy implications for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, who are increasingly
integrating social network analysis into strategic and tactical intelligence (Duijn & Klerks,
2014). Network analysis is often used to identify possible additional investigative paths and
persons of interest (Burcher & Whelan, 2017). First, the analysis of meeting networks may
yield useful insights during the early stages of an investigation, enabling better focusing of
limited surveillance resources against potential leaders. The content of telecommunications
provides detailed information on the networks, but wiretapping is expensive and follows spe-
cific requirements by courts. Law enforcement agencies can more easily control individuals’
movements than their communications, making data on meetings is more easily accessible;
the analysis of meetings may uncover leaders avoiding participation in telephone calls and
thus uncover patterns unknown to the authorities. Second, when available in national legisla-
tion, preventive or administrative orders may prohibit leaders from meeting each other, which
may ultimately jeopardize the internal organization of criminal networks (Calderoni, 2015).
Third, leaders with high-brokering characteristics may be the target for arrests, although re-
search showed these operations may impact differently on the levels of violence depending on
the criminal group embeddedness in the social relations with other groups (Vargas, 2014;
Calderón, Robles, Díaz-Cayeros, & Magaloni, 2015; Vargas, 2016).
4.3. Limitations
In addition to the limitations discussed in the previous subsections, the study may suf-
fer from network incompleteness and non-random sampling. First, network completeness and
boundary definition may be relevant for studies relying on judicial sources, as the investiga-
25
![Page 26: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
tions may have missed important nodes or links biasing the boundaries of the observed net-
work (Sparrow, 1991; Morselli & Petit, 2007; Morselli, 2009b; Campana & Varese, 2011;
Faust & Tita, 2019). However, the investigations analyzed here were long and carefully built
cases, specifically intended to reconstruct the internal organizations of the ‘Ndrangheta. Trials
for Infinito, Crimine, and Minotauro have confirmed the charges, finally convicting nearly all
defendants. In October 2018, the third grade trial for Aemilia also confirmed the charges
against a group of defendants, while a first grade trial upheld the charges against the others.
Consequently, the risk of omissions that may have radically biased the networks appears low.
Furthermore, several studies reject the concerns about network completeness, arguing that,
under conditions, judicial sources are reliable for the analysis of criminal groups (Campana &
Varese, 2011; Morselli, 2009b, Chapter 5); that network measures are reliable even if ran-
domly tested for missing data (Berlusconi, Calderoni, Parolini, Verani, & Piccardi, 2016; Xu
& Chen, 2003); and that network analysis may even contribute to the identification of missing
links (Berlusconi et al., 2016; Chen, Gao, Karampelas, Alhajj, & Rokne, 2011; Clauset,
Moore, & Newman, 2008; Rhodes & Jones, 2008).
Second, investigative data provide non-random samples possibly biased by the investi-
gators’ strategies, who may concentrate on a few individuals, e.g. those initially believed to be
high-profile criminals and/or the more visible targets, who may result as the leaders of the
criminal networks. The research design carefully addressed these possible biases, by identify-
ing leaders relying only through information independent from either investigators’ judge-
ments or network topology. The majority of leaders were identified from direct evidence pro-
vided by the suspects during intercepted conversations. Furthermore, logistic regressions in-
cluded events participation and criminal charges for the main offence, thus controlling for
possible biases against high-profile targets. Lastly, results of logistic regressions are consis-
tent across the four criminal networks and robust to changes in the leader classification.
26
![Page 27: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
5. Conclusions
Previous research on organized crime networks has frequently relied on data based on tele-
phone communications. However, wiretaps may bias the analysis of criminal groups as crimi-
nal leaders often minimize telephone use in favor of other communication channels. Among
these, meetings may provide a valuable alternative to assess the nature of criminal leadership,
offering insight into the security strategies and the brokering roles of the leaders and the so-
cial embeddedness of organized crime.
This study examined the nature of criminal leadership examining leaders’ participation
in meeting and telephone communications, and comparing meeting and wiretap networks in
identifying leaders. The results showed that leaders minimize telephone use and prefer indi-
rect connectivity, particularly in meeting networks. Through meetings, not only do leaders en-
sure more secure management of the criminal activities, but they also achieve strategic bro-
kering positions, bridging across unconnected individuals. Besides these advantages, meetings
are also social and cultural obligations, hardly avoidable for security concerns. Indeed, logis-
tic regressions on meeting networks identified a relevant share of criminal leaders by relying
solely on centrality measures. Particularly, high betweenness centrality, a measure of an indi-
vidual’s brokerage, substantially increases the probability of being a criminal leader.
The research can be extended in many directions. First, future studies might replicate
the analyses to test the external validity of the results further, by focusing on other groups,
such as street gangs, drug trafficking organizations, and terrorist groups. The extent to which
these replications will be possible will depend largely on the quality of the data on meeting
participation (Campana & Varese, 2011). Second, further analyses could focus on meeting at-
tendance patterns within groups spread across different regions or countries, and see whether
this constraint obliges leaders to resort to telephone calls because meetings may be more diffi-
cult to arrange. Third, more operational applications might test whether the identification of
27
![Page 28: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
leaders in several networks is reliable at early stages of the investigation (Calderoni, 2015),
paving the way for the support of law enforcement agencies in the timely identification of the
best target for network disruption (Bichler & Malm, 2015).
In conclusion, the findings complement the previous literature in demonstrating crimi-
nals’ constant struggle to balance security and efficiency, and the capacity of betweenness
centrality to capture leaders’ brokering roles in meetings. By focusing on meetings, the study
indicates a new source of information which can improve knowledge on the behavior of crim-
inal leaders and on the social structure of criminal groups. Furthermore, the identification of
criminal leaders through network analysis of their meeting participations may yield remark-
able benefits to investigations and intelligence.
28
![Page 29: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
References
Agreste, S., Catanese, S., De Meo, P., Ferrara, E., & Fiumara, G. (2016). Network Structure
and Resilience of Mafia Syndicates. Information Sciences, 351(C), 30–47.
Allison, P. (2013). What’s the Best R-Squared for Logistic Regression? Retrieved May 31,
2016, from http://statisticalhorizons.com/r2logistic
Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (1993). The Social Organization of Conspiracy: Illegal Net-
works in the Heavy Electrical Equipment Industry. American Sociological Review,
58(6), 837–860. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095954
Benson, J. S., & Decker, S. H. (2010). The organizational structure of international drug
smuggling. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(2), 130–138.
Berlusconi, G. (2013). Do all the pieces matter? Assessing the reliability of law enforcement
data sources for the network analysis of wire taps. Global Crime, 14(1), 61–81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2012.746940
Berlusconi, G., Calderoni, F., Parolini, N., Verani, M., & Piccardi, C. (2016). Link Prediction
in Criminal Networks: A Tool for Criminal Intelligence Analysis. PLOS ONE, 11(4),
e0154244. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154244
Bichler, G., & Malm, A. E. (Eds.). (2015). Disrupting Criminal Networks: Network Analysis
in Crime Prevention. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Boissevain, J. (1974). Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for
Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
Bouchard, M., & Konarski, R. (2014). Assessing the core membership of a youth gang from
its co-offending network. In C. Morselli (Ed.), Crime and Networks (pp. 81–93). New
York - London: Routledge.
29
![Page 30: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Bright, D. A., Greenhill, C., & Levenkova, N. (2014). Dismantling criminal networks: Can
node attributes play a role? In C. Morselli (Ed.), Crime and Networks (pp. 148–162).
New York - London: Routledge.
Bright, D. A., Greenhill, C., Reynolds, M., Ritter, A., & Morselli, C. (2015). The Use of Ac-
tor-Level Attributes and Centrality Measures to Identify Key Actors: A Case Study of
an Australian Drug Trafficking Network. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,
31(3), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986214553378
Bright, D. A., Hughes, C. E., & Chalmers, J. (2012). Illuminating dark networks: a social net-
work analysis of an Australian drug trafficking syndicate. Crime, Law and Social
Change, 57(2), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9336-z
Bright, D., Greenhill, C., Britz, T., Ritter, A., & Morselli, C. (2017). Criminal network vul-
nerabilities and adaptations. Global Crime, 18(4), 424–441. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17440572.2017.1377614
Bright, D., Koskinen, J., & Malm, A. (2018). Illicit Network Dynamics: The Formation and
Evolution of a Drug Trafficking Network. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9379-8
Burcher, M., & Whelan, C. (2017). Social network analysis as a tool for criminal intelligence:
understanding its potential from the perspectives of intelligence analysts. Trends in
Organized Crime, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-017-9313-8
Burt, R. S. (1980). Models of Network Structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 6(1), 79–141.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2007). Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
30
![Page 31: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Calderón, G., Robles, G., Díaz-Cayeros, A., & Magaloni, B. (2015). The Beheading of Crimi-
nal Organizations and the Dynamics of Violence in Mexico. Journal of Conflict Reso-
lution, 59(8), 1455–1485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002715587053
Calderoni, F. (2012). The structure of drug trafficking mafias: the ‘Ndrangheta and cocaine.
Crime, Law and Social Change, 58(3), 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-
9387-9
Calderoni, F. (2014). Identifying Mafia Bosses from Meeting Attendance. In A. J. Masys
(Ed.), Networks and Network Analysis for Defence and Security (pp. 27–48). Cham:
Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Calderoni, F. (2015). Predicting Organized Crime Leaders. In G. Bichler & A. E. Malm
(Eds.), Disrupting Criminal Networks: Network Analysis in Crime Prevention (pp. 89–
110). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Calderoni, F., Berlusconi, G., Garofalo, L., Giommoni, L., & Sarno, F. (2016). The Italian
mafias in the world: A systematic assessment of the mobility of criminal groups. Eu-
ropean Journal of Criminology, 13(4), 413–433. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1477370815623570
Campana, P. (2013). Understanding Then Responding to Italian Organized Crime Operations
across Territories. Policing, 7(3), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pat012
Campana, P., & Varese, F. (2011). Listening to the wire: criteria and techniques for the quan-
titative analysis of phone intercepts. Trends in Organized Crime, 15(1), 13–30.
Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Lee, J.-S. (2002). Destabilizing networks. Connections,
24(3), 79–92.
Chen, A., Gao, S., Karampelas, P., Alhajj, R., & Rokne, J. (2011). Finding Hidden Links in
Terrorist Networks by Checking Indirect Links of Different Sub-Networks. In U. K.
31
![Page 32: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Wiil (Ed.), Counterterrorism and Open Source Intelligence (pp. 143–158). Springer
Vienna.
Clauset, A., Moore, C., & Newman, M. E. J. (2008). Hierarchical structure and the prediction
of missing links in networks. Nature, 453(7191), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/na-
ture06830
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95–120.
Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2015). Street Gangs, Terrorists, Drug Smugglers, and Orga-
nized Crime: What’s the Difference? In S. H. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The
Handbook of Gangs (pp. 294–308). Chichester: Wiley.
Decker, S. H., & Townsend Chapman, M. (2008). Drug Smugglers on Drug Smuggling:
Lessons from the Inside. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
DellaPosta, D. (2017). Network closure and integration in the mid-20th century American
mafia. Social Networks, 51, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2016.11.005
Demiroz, F., & Kapucu, N. (2012). Anatomy of a dark network: the case of the Turkish Er-
genekon terrorist organization. Trends in Organized Crime, 15(4), 271–295. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12117-012-9151-7
Dorn, N., Murji, K., & South, N. (Eds.). (1992). Traffickers: Drug Markets and Law Enforce-
ment. London: Routledge.
Duijn, P. A. C., Kashirin, V., & Sloot, P. M. A. (2014). The Relative Ineffectiveness of Crim-
inal Network Disruption. Scientific Reports, 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04238
Duijn, P. A. C., & Klerks, P. (2014). Social network analysis applied to criminal networks:
Recent developments in Dutch law enforcement. In A. Masys (Ed.), Networks and
Network Analysis for Defence and Security. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
32
![Page 33: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Faust, K., & Tita, G. E. (2019). Social Networks and Crime: Pitfalls and Promises for Ad-
vancing the Field. Annual Review of Criminology, 2(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024701
Firth, D. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80(1), 27–38.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/80.1.27
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Net-
works, 1(3), 215–239.
Gambetta, D. (1993). The Sicilian Mafia: the business of private protection. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Socio-
logical Theory, 1(1), 201–233.
Hofmann, D. C., & Gallupe, O. (2015). Leadership protection in drug-trafficking networks.
Global Crime, 16(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2015.1008627
Kleemans, E. R. (2014). Theoretical perspectives on organized crime. In L. Paoli (Ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Organized Crime (pp. 32–52). London: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199730445.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199730445-e-025
Kleemans, E. R., Brienen, M. E. I., & Van De Bunt, H. (2002). Dutch Organized Crime Mon-
itor: Georganiseerde Criminaliteit in Nederland. Tweede Reportage Op Basis van de
WODC-Monitor. Den Haag: WODC.
Kleemans, E. R., & de Poot, C. J. (2008). Criminal Careers in Organized Crime and Social
Opportunity Structure. European Journal of Criminology, 5(1), 69–98.
33
![Page 34: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Kleemans, E. R., & Van De Bunt, H. (1999). The social embeddedness of organized crime.
Transnational Organized Crime, 5(1), 19–36.
Kleemans, E. R., & Van Koppen, M. V. (2014). Careers in Organized Crime. In G. Bruinsma
& D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp. 285–
295). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_321
KLPD. (2011). The ’Ndrangheta in the Netherlands: The nature, criminal activities and modi
operandi on Dutch territory. Amsterdam: National Crime Squad National - Police
Agency of the Netherlands.
Krebs, V. E. (2002). Mapping networks of terrorist cells. Connections, 24(3), 43–52.
Lo, T. W. (2010). Beyond Social Capital: Triad Organized Crime in Hong Kong and China.
The British Journal of Criminology, 50(5), 851–872. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/
azq022
Malm, A. E., Bichler, G., & Van De Walle, S. (2010). Comparing the ties that bind criminal
networks: Is blood thicker than water? Security Journal, 23(1), 52–74.
Mancuso, M. (2014). Not all madams have a central role: analysis of a Nigerian sex traffick-
ing network. Trends in Organized Crime, 17(1–2), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12117-013-9199-z
McGloin, J. M., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). On the Relationship between Co-Offending Net-
work Redundancy and Offending Versatility. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 47(1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427809348905
Morselli, C. (2001). Structuring Mr. Nice: entrepreneurial opportunities and brokerage posi-
tioning in the cannabis trade. Crime, Law and Social Change, 35(3), 203–244.
Morselli, C. (2003). Career opportunities and network-based privileges in the Cosa Nostra.
Crime, Law and Social Change, 39(4), 383–418.
34
![Page 35: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Morselli, C. (2009a). Hells Angels in Springtime. Trends in Organized Crime, 12(2), 145–
158.
Morselli, C. (2009b). Inside Criminal Networks. New York: Springer.
Morselli, C. (2010). Assessing Vulnerable and Strategic Positions in a Criminal Network.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(4), 382–392. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1043986210377105
Morselli, C., Giguère, C., & Petit, K. (2007). The efficiency/security trade-off in criminal net-
works. Social Networks, 29(1), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2006.05.001
Morselli, C., Masias, V. H., Crespo, F., & Laengle, S. (2013). Predicting sentencing outcomes
with centrality measures. Security Informatics, 2(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-
8532-2-4
Morselli, C., & Petit, K. (2007). Law-Enforcement Disruption of a Drug Importation Net-
work. Global Crime, 8(2), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17440570701362208
Morselli, C., & Roy, J. (2008). Brokerage Qualifications in Ringing Operations. Criminology,
46(1), 71–98.
Morselli, C., & Tremblay, P. (2004). Criminal Achievement, Offender Networks and the Ben-
efits of Low Self-Control. Criminology, 42(3), 773–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-9125.2004.tb00536.x
Natarajan, M. (2006). Understanding the Structure of a Large Heroin Distribution Network: A
Quantitative Analysis of Qualitative Data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(2),
171–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9007-x
Paoli, L. (1994). An Underestimated Criminal Phenomenon: The Calabrian ’Ndrangheta. Eu-
ropean Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2(3), 212–238.
Paoli, L. (2002). The paradoxes of organized crime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 37(1),
51–97.
35
![Page 36: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Paoli, L. (2003). Mafia brotherhoods: Organized crime, Italian style. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Papachristos, A. V., & Smith, C. M. (2014). The Embedded and Multiplex Nature of Al
Capone. In C. Morselli (Ed.), Crime and Networks (pp. 97–115). New York: Rout-
ledge.
Pearson, G., & Hobbs, D. (2001). Middle Market Drug Distribution (Home Office Research
Study No. 227). London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics
Directorate.
Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Reggio Calabria. Decreto di fermo di indiziato
di delitto - artt. 384 e ss. c.p.p. (1389/2008 R.G.N.R. D.D.A., Operazione Crimine),
No. 1389/2008 R.G.N.R. D.D.A. (Procura della Repubblica Presso il Tribunale di
Reggio Calabria luglio 2010).
Reuter, P. (1983). Disorganized crime: the economics of the visible hand. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Reuter, P., & Haaga, J. (1989). The Organization of High-Level Drug Markets: An Ex-
ploratory Study. Santa Monica: Rand.
Reuter, P., & Rubinstein, J. (1982). Illegal Gambling in New York: a case study in the opera-
tion, structure, and regulation of an illegal market. Washington D.C.: U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Rhodes, C. J., & Jones, P. (2008). Inferring missing links in partially observed social net-
works. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(10), 1373–1383. https://
doi.org/10.1057/jors.2008.110
Robins, G. (2009). Understanding individual behaviors within covert networks: the interplay
of individual qualities, psychological predispositions, and network effects. Trends in
Organized Crime, 12(2), 166–187.
36
![Page 37: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Rostami, A., & Mondani, H. (2015). The Complexity of Crime Network Data: A Case Study
of Its Consequences for Crime Control and the Study of Networks. PLOS ONE, 10(3),
e0119309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119309
Scaglione, A. (2011). Reti Mafiose: Cosa Nostra e Camorra: organizzazioni criminali a
confronto. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Schwartz, D. M., & Rouselle, T. (2009). Using social network analysis to target criminal net-
works. Trends in Organized Crime, 12(2), 188–207.
Sciarrone, R., & Storti, L. (2014). The territorial expansion of mafia-type organized crime.
The case of the Italian mafia in Germany. Crime, Law and Social Change, 61(1), 37–
60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-013-9473-7
Serenata, N. (Ed.). (2014). The ’Ndrangheta and Sacra Corona Unita - The History, |
Nicoletta Serenata | Springer. New York: Springer.
Sergi, A. (2015). The Evolution of the Australian ‘Ndrangheta. An Historical Perspective.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/
doi:10.1177/0004865814554305
Sergi, A. (2018). Polycephalous ‘ndrangheta: Crimes, behaviours and organisation of the Cal-
abrian mafia in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0004865818782573
Sergi, A., & Lavorgna, A. (2016). ‘Ndrangheta: The Glocal Dimensions of the Most Powerful
Italian Mafia. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. (K. H. Wolf, Trans.). New York: The
Free Press.
Sparrow, M. K. (1991). Network vulnerabilities and strategic intelligence in law enforcement.
International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, 5(3), 255–274.
37
![Page 38: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Tjur, T. (2009). Coefficients of Determination in Logistic Regression Models—A New Pro-
posal: The Coefficient of Discrimination. The American Statistician, 63(4), 366–372.
https://doi.org/10.1198/tast.2009.08210
Transcrime. (2013). Progetto PON Sicurezza 2007-2013: Gli investimenti delle mafie.
Rapporto Linea 1. Milano: Ministero dell’Interno. Retrieved from
www.investimentioc.it
Tribunale di Bologna. Ordinanza di applicazione di misure cautelari coercitive - artt. 272 e ss.
284, 285 c.p.p. (N.20604-10 RNR DDA N. 17375-11 R GIP, Operazione Aemilia),
No. N.20604-10 RNR DDA N. 17375-11 R GIP (Sezione dei giudici per le indagini
preliminari e l’udienza preliminare gennaio 2015).
Tribunale di Milano. Ordinanza di applicazione di misura coercitiva con mandato di cattura -
art. 292 c.p.p. (N.43733/06 R.G.N.R. N. 8265/06 R.G.G.I.P., Operazione Infinito), No.
N.43733/06 R.G.N.R. N. 8265/06 R.G.G.I.P. (Ufficio del giudice per le indagini
preliminari luglio 2010).
Tribunale di Torino. Ordinanza di applicazione di misura coercitiva con mandato di cattura -
art. 292 c.p.p. (N.6191/07 + 9689/08 R.G. notizie di reato N. 5418/07 + 4775/09 R.G.
G.I.P., Operazione Minotauro), No. N.6191/07 + 9689/08 R.G. notizie di reato N.
5418/07 + 4775/09 R.G. G.I.P. (Sezione dei giudici per le indagini preliminari maggio
2011).
Varese, F. (2006a). How Mafias Migrate: The Case of the ’Ndrangheta in Northern Italy. Law
& Society Review, 40(2), 411–444.
Varese, F. (2006b). The Structure of a Criminal Network Examined: The Russian Mafia in
Rome. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper, 21.
38
![Page 39: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Vargas, R. (2014). Criminal Group Embeddedness and the Adverse Effects of Arresting a
Gang’s Leader: A Comparative Case Study. Criminology, 52(2), 143–168. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12033
Vargas, R. (2016). Wounded City. Violent turf wars in a Chicago barrio. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Wang, P. (2017). The Chinese Mafia: Organized Crime, Corruption, and Extra-Legal Protec-
tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waniek, M., Michalak, T. P., Rahwan, T., & Wooldridge, M. (2017). On the Construction of
Covert Networks. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and
MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2017) (pp. 1341–1349). Richland, SC: International
Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Retrieved from http://
dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3091282.3091310
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, D. J. (2004). Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. New York: W. W. Norton
& Company.
Xu, J., & Chen, H. (2003). Untangling Criminal Networks: A Case Study. In H. Chen, R. Mi-
randa, D. D. Zeng, C. Demchak, J. Schroeder, & T. Madhusudan (Eds.), Intelligence
and Security Informatics (Vol. 2665, pp. 232–248). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Zaitch, D. (2002). Bosses, Brokers and Helpers. Labour and business relations amongst
Colombian cocaine traffickers. Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, 29(4), 502–529.
39
![Page 40: publicatt.unicatt.it€¦ · Web viewThis is the author’s accepted manuscript of Calderoni, Francesco, and Elisa Superchi. 2019. “The Nature of Organized Crime Leadership: Criminal](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022060221/5f0744cc7e708231d41c2584/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Annex
Table A. Networks’ Topology and Connectivity*
Network N. of events
Leadership roles
N. of Nodes
Mafia charge Density N. of
linksAverage Degree
Degree centralization
N. of components
N. of nodes in secondary components
Average Geodesic Distance
Aemilia meeting 234
Leaders 6 65.1% 2,606 11.5 23.9% 5 11 2.8Others 221 54
Total 227 60
Aemilia wiretap 802
Leaders 6 61.5% 608 3.0 23.0% 2 3 3.6Others 197 53
Total 203 59
Crimine meeting 540
Leaders 24 233.9% 8,540 18.3 27.1% 5 13 3.0Others 443 82
Total 467 105
Crimine wiretap 700
Leaders 12 121.2% 496 2.4 29.1% 6 13 6.2Others 196 31
Total 208 43
Infinito meeting 483
Leaders 25 246.5% 4,100 16.3 25.2% 2 2 2.8Others 227 105
Total 252 129
Infinito wiretap 342
Leaders 23 221.6% 410 2.5 8.4% 3 4 6.3Others 140 87
Total 163 109
Minotauro meeting 437
Leaders 15 1411.6% 16,466 43.7 47.1% 3 10 2.3Others 362 99
Total 377 133
Minotauro wiretap 1,385
Leaders 13 121.8% 708 2.6 17.6% 5 12 5.1Others 259 40
Total 272 69*The density and the average degree reveal a network’s connectivity by calculating the ratio between the total observed direct relations and the total possible ones and the average number of nodes’ direct connections, respectively. The average geodesic distance generally describes a network’s information efficiency by averaging the shortest (geodesic) distance for all possible pairs of network nodes.
Figure A. Operation Minotauro, Two-Mode and One-Mode Meeting Networks
On the left pane, red nodes are meetings and black nodes individuals. On the right pane, red nodes are leaders, black nodes are non-leaders.
Nodes sized by betweenness centrality.
40