Search results

There is an evolving literature on criminal entrepreneurship which situates it as a sub-topic of the organised crime literature and either mythologies and elevates the criminal entrepreneur to Mafioso status or ascribes it to being an activity carried out by criminal cartels; or else it trivialises and minimises it as being ‘White-Collar Criminality’. In reality, entrepreneurship pervades everyday criminal life as it pervades the everyday practices of policing. In this chapter, the author acknowledges the existence of a ‘Crimino-Entrepreneurial Interface’ populated by a cast of criminal actors including the ubiquitous ‘Businessman Gangster’. These criminally entrepreneurial actors operate within a specific milieu or ‘Enterprise Model of Crime’ and operate alongside the legitimate ‘Entrepreneurial Business Community’. Within the two conjoined systems, there is a routine exchange of interactions either parasitical or symbiotic and these coalesce to form an ecosystem of enterprise crime in which it is not only the ubiquitous criminal entrepreneur who is present but a veritable cast of entrepreneurially motivated criminal actors. As well as the established business community there is a parallel, alternative community which is situated in the so-called ‘Criminal Areas’ where the traditional criminal fraternity carry out their nefarious entrepreneurial activities. Within such areas, an underclass exists which provides the criminal workforce for organised crime. The traditional criminal ecosystem is the natural habitat for the police, and it is around this activity that police are traditionally organised. A perpetual cycle of crime is set up which requires policing, but this leaves an unpoliced void which the entrepreneurial criminals exploit. It is necessary to understand the criminal places and spaces exploited by Organised Crime and what roles other criminal actors and facilitators play in the enterprise model. It is also necessary to understand the so-called ‘Perverse Model of Policing’ which distorts and magnifies the true scale of the problem and to appreciate how Serious and Organised Crime corrupt and infiltrate the legitimate ‘upperworld’ before one can understand the true scale of entrepreneurialism in policing and criminal contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to focus upon organized criminals as an enterprising community and as enterprising people. Organized crime is a global phenomenon that concentrates upon the development of both sustainable personal prosperity and criminal culture as they define it. Such criminal businesses and the business of criminality go far beyond simple economic and capitalist criteria and entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ability play a significant part in creating criminal wealth. Indeed, it is part of committed criminality. Whilst acknowledging the crime‐entrepreneurship nexus the literature seldom seeks to understand entrepreneurial behaviour practiced in a criminal context. This paper therefore examines entrepreneurial behaviour in criminals looking for useful theoretical perspectives and distilling key practices by seeking to understand entrepreneurial behaviour in organized criminals.

The methodological approach is a qualitative one and relies on cross disciplinary readings of the literatures of crime and entrepreneurship which are developed into a conceptual model for understanding entrepreneurial behaviour in any context. The key behavioural areas which the work concentrates upon are those of modus essendi, modus operandi and modus vivendi.

That crime and entrepreneurship are interconnected areas of human endeavour which both transcend the legal and illegal economies.

The paper is limited by its tentative and theoretical nature and by the methodology of cross disciplinary reading. Future studies are planned to test the tripartite behavioural model on real cases.

Viewing entrepreneurship (like criminality) as being a learned method of operating has serious practical implications because it concentrates upon behaviours and actions in specific contexts.

Linking this understanding to the related elements of modus vivendi and modus essendi creates a useful model for understanding entrepreneurship in any context.

So far, in Chapters 1 and 2, we have explored the scope and power of entrepreneurship in policing and criminal contexts, and in particular, entrepreneurial policing, as well as having examined the inherent cultural and organisational dynamics within the service which make its implementation problematic. In Chapter 3, the author looked at how the philosophy and practice of entrepreneurial leadership has initiated entrepreneurial change in respect of organisational governance; and, in Chapter 4, the author examined the related concept of criminal entrepreneurship and established that there is also an inherent entrepreneurial nature to crime and in particular organised crime. This inherent phenomenon is also present in ordinary disorganised crime. Accordingly, the author developed an enterprise-based ecosystem model of crime and discussed what this means in terms of the entrepreneurial organisational capabilities of the police and in turn how this affects how they interdict serious and organised crime. There is a palpable mismatch. In Chapters 5 and 6, the author turned to further explore how the service can inject entrepreneurial vigour into its structures, philosophies, and everyday practices, processes, and procedures by understanding the mismatch and taking steps to initiate change. In Chapter 7, the author draws the threads of the argument together by discussing the critical need for change and provide suggestions on how to overcome obstacles and difficulties. This will entail reversing the cultures of risk-aversion, anti-entrepreneurialism, anti-intellectualism and by learning to lead entrepreneurially. Policing is a complex social process which changes as a result of social pressures and political changes and accordingly the author briefly examines some important changes brought about by the global Covid-19 pandemic which may change the way the police in the twenty-first century. Finally, the author ends by considering how to move towards a more entrepreneurial future in policing and criminal contexts.

In the past decade, the concept and theory of “Entrepreneurial Policing” has emerged in academic and policing circles, particularly in a UK context. The purpose of this paper is to collect salient articles from extant but diverse literatures such as policing and criminology to synthesise a literature on it, focussing upon conceptual, theoretical and practical elements.

The approach is based on synthesising a literature using an in-depth review methodology and on analysing it to develop new insights into theoretical elements.

The findings are that the literature base is diverse and comes from a variety of policing, criminology, entrepreneurship, management, leadership and policy journals. There is a protean literature but at present little conceptual or theoretical clarity.

There is a need for further empirical research in the form of qualitative face-to-face interviews to be conducted to develop typologies, taxonomies and topographies of entrepreneurial policing (EP). Developing illustrative case studies and teaching cases will educate new generations of police officers into the power and potential of EP as a change agent. This necessitates a change of policing structures, philosophies, processes and practices. From such theoretical groundwork, it is possible at a universal theory of what constitutes EP can be developed and tested. There is a need for commissioned research into the potentially revolutionary phenomenon; a text book and for training courses and seminars on the topic.

There are a number of practical implications for policing and policy practitioners and for its application in the future. From a policing perspective, an increased awareness of EP and criminal entrepreneurship can have positive outcomes in terms of new policing structures, philosophies, methodologies, practices and processes. From a criminal perspective, it heralds a better understanding of entrepreneurial crime, entrepreneurial criminals and organised crime groups. This could result in entrepreneurship educational programmes for police officers, senior officers and other law enforcement personnel and entrepreneurship awareness training for prisoners and ex-offenders and new avenues for utilising entrepreneurship as a diversion out of crime.

There are also a number of social implications including the need for policy makers and politicians to be aware of the policing–entrepreneurship nexus and to award financial grants to encourage enterprising behaviour across the criminal justice system; encourage entrepreneurs to give back to their local communities; and increase the number of social enterprises in under-privileged communities.

This review is the first of its kind to deal specifically with EP and its evolution.

In small-business-communities trust is important inter/intra family particularly in relation to familial dynamics. Seldom is mistrust or distrust examined in an academic context. In business families “Black-Sheep” often rebel against familial expectations by engaging in criminal activity. This is important because entrepreneurs are eulogised by society and as an institution, family business is venerated. The very idea that small business owners would knowingly engage in crime is anathema. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Using retrospective ethnography and immersion techniques this quasi-longitudinal study of (dis)organized crime in a small-business-community (SBC) starts the bridging process.

There is an assumption that business crime is best accommodated under the rubric of white-collar-criminality typically regarded as an excusable middle-class crime compared to organized working-class crime. By focusing on the black-sheep of business families collectively this work illustrates how there may be a stronger link between organized-crime-groups and the local-business-community than previously assumed because a small minority of businessmen engage in the commission of ordinary crime by choice.

The methodology used is a limitation as is replicating it in other small-business-communities.

This study provides an alternative heuristic through which to understand the application black-sheep-thesis in business settings. The knowledge developed has practical implications for the investigation of crime in such communities and for researchers in the field.

This study extends knowledge of white-collar-criminality within the business domain.

This is an original and novel study which extends our knowledge and understanding of trust based issues in business settings and the SBC.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the topic and discuss the individual chapters in this volume as well as to provide an intellectual orientation which will hopefully inspire casual readers to read further. The main thesis behind this volume is that entrepreneurial crime and illegal enterprise span two very distinct yet complimentary academic disciplines – namely Criminology and Entrepreneurial/Business Studies. And that we need to take cognisance of both instead of writing and publishing in disciplinary silos.

Our methodological approach in this volume is predominantly qualitative and in addition mainly review based. Our editorial approach is/was one of laissez-faire in that we did not want to stifle authorial creativity or impose order where there was none, or very little. The result is a very eclectic collection of interesting readings which we hope will challenge researchers interested in the topics to cross inter- and intra-disciplinary literature in search of new theoretical models.

Rather than findings we see the contribution of the volume as being an attempt to start conversations between disciplines. We appreciate that this is only a beginning. There are discoveries and perhaps a need to redraw boundaries. One surprising finding was how much the authors all drew on the seminal work of William Baumol to the extent that it has become a common framework for understanding the cross overs.

There are many limitations to the chapters in this volume. The main one is that in any edited volume the editors are faced with a dilemma of allowing more voices to emerge or imposing a restrictive explanatory framework which in turn shoe horns the chapters into an over-arching sense-making architecture. The limitation of this volume is that it can only present a few of the voices and only begin a synthesis. Interested researchers must work hard to draw meaning from the eclectic voices.

The practical implications from this chapter and the edited chapters are manifold. The chapters deal with complex issues and we have opted to allow the authorial voice to be heard and to allow disciplinary writing styles to remain as they are. This allows a very practical understanding of everyday implications to emerge.

There are many policy implications which arise from this introductory chapter and the chapters in this volume but these will take time to manifest themselves. The main point to take away is that to understand and interdict crime and in particular entrepreneurial crime we must draw on inter-disciplinary knowledge and theories of entrepreneurship and business in a wider sense.

This chapter introduces a series of apparently separate yet interconnected chapters which explore the bounds and boundaries of illegal entrepreneurship and its originality lies in its approach.

This chapter introduces the two main topics of ‘entrepreneurial policing’ and ‘criminal entrepreneurship’ and begins in Section 1.1 by considering the concept and scope of entrepreneurial policing around which this monograph is organised. Its definition and ontological development are considered. Thereafter, the author briefly discuss what entrepreneurship is (and is not) and set out examples of entrepreneurship of interest to policing, including – ‘Corporate’ and ‘Team’ Entrepreneurship, ‘Intrapreneurship’, ‘Social Entrepreneurship and Animateurship’, ‘Civic Entrepreneurship’, and ‘Public Service Entrepreneurship’. The author then discusses why entrepreneurship is of critical importance to the police service and discuss worked examples. Having developed a basic understanding of the power and utility of entrepreneurship, then in more detail what the term entrepreneurial policing means and how it evolved in practice and in the academic literature are considered. In Section 1.2, the foundations of entrepreneurial policing considering its ontological and epistemological development from ‘New Public Management’ to ‘New Entrepreneurialism’ and also the influence of the merging literatures of ‘Criminal Entrepreneurship’ and ‘Entrepreneurial Leadership’ are critically examined. In Section 1.3, our consideration to include a more nuanced understanding of the what is referred to as the ‘Entrepreneurship–Policing Nexus’ including consideration of the influence of dyslexia on policing and crime and the power of the ‘Entrepreneurial’ and ‘Gangster’ dreams on entrepreneurial motivation and propensity are expanded. In Section 1.4, an attempt is made to identify who the stakeholders of this new policing philosophy are? Finally, in Section 1.5, the chapter takeaway points which both articulates and confirms the inherent importance of entrepreneurship in policing and criminal contexts are discussed and detailed.

To explore and document the emerging international market for stolen tractors and plant in the United Kingdom. Whilst this may appear to be a criminological problem relating specifically to rural crime, it is a sophisticated international criminal business organised by traditional organised crime groups (OCGs) such as the Italian, Polish and Turkish Mafia’s in conjunction with a network of criminal entrepreneurs.

Using annual statistical data provided by National Farmers Union (NFU) Mutual and Plant and Agricultural National Intelligence Unit (PANIU) and other material sourced using documentary research techniques supplemented by qualitative interviews with industry specialists we present 10 micro-case studies of rural OCGs engaged in this lucrative enterprise crime. The data is verified and authenticated using narrative inquiry techniques.

There is an entrepreneurial dimension to the crime because traditional criminal families with knowledge of rural areas and rural social capital form alliances with OCGs. The practical utility of the NFU model of entrepreneurial alliances with interested parties including the police is highlighted.

Implications for research design, ethics and the conduct of such research which are identified and discussed. These include the need to develop an investigative framework to protect academic researchers similar to guidelines in place to protect investigative journalists.

An investigative framework and the adaption of the business model canvass (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010) to cover illegal business models are proposed.

Suggestions are provided for the need to legislate against international criminal conspiracies.

Uses a mixture of entrepreneurship and criminological theories to help develop an understanding of the problem from an investigative perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to apply neutralization theory to white‐collar criminals to discuss criminal entrepreneurship.

The theoretical framework of neutralization techniques is applied to criminal entrepreneurship and white‐collar criminality.

A legal entrepreneur is a person who operates a new enterprise or venture and assumes some accountability for the inherent risk. Similarly, the criminal entrepreneur's task is to discover and exploit opportunities, defined most simply as situations in which there are a profit to be made in criminal activity.

Examples of criminal entrepreneurship committed by otherwise legal entrepreneurs are commonly labeled as white‐collar criminality. This paper discusses how criminal entrepreneurship by white‐collar criminals can be explained by neutralization theory, as white‐collar criminals tend to apply techniques of neutralization used by offenders to deny the criminality of their actions.

Policing white‐collar criminality should be expanded to understand criminal entrepreneurs when applying neutralization theory to deny crime activities.

Neutralization theory illustrates how serious white‐collar crime is denied by the offender.

As can be seen by this brief discussion of criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality and corporate and organized crime, there is a need for a concentrated research effort to clarify and explain these conflated conflicts. By discussing them in context this paper has made a contribution to the literature by introducing the concepts of entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial judgment into the debate. Moreover, in discussing neutralization theory, some fresh insights can be gained into the mind of the criminal entrepreneur.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of the changing practices of cattle rustling in Kenya from a relatively small isolated and opportunistic activity to a much more planned and systematic entrepreneurial business involving collusion and corruption.

This paper provides a conceptual approach using key literature and documentary evidence to show how, in the northern part of Kenya, cattle rustling is common occurrence with criminals taking advantage of remote rural environments with minimal surveillance and consequently less opportunity of being stopped and searched by police.

Results evidence significant differences in how rustling is perceived and valorized. Rustling in Kenya is now an entrepreneurial crime with the involvement of rural organized criminal gangs (ROCGs), who are operating in food supply chains throughout Kenya and the African continent.

This paper suggests that a more nuanced understanding of the entrepreneurial nature of some illegal practices in a rural Kenya is necessary and how it requires multi-agency investigation.

The paper is unique in that it considers how cattle rustling is becoming a more entrepreneurial crime than previously. Little prior work on this subject exists in Kenya. The paper utilizes the framework of Smith and McElwee (2013) on illegal enterprise to frame cattle rustling as an entrepreneurial crime.