Throughout the world, research has reliably demonstrated that organized criminal groups operate and act within the context of the social institution, implying that they have specific basic attributes such as objectives, interaction, social structure and management (Yarmysh, 2001).
In line with the social institution tradition, the goals and objectives of organized criminal groups are usually set by leaders and customized according to the requirements and interests of group members (Mallory, 2007). This paper not only discusses the term ‘social institution’ as it relates to organized crime, but also illuminates which theories are most applicable to this perspective.
The term ‘social institution’ can be understood within the context of the community, which has been defined by Warren (1973) as “that combination of social units and systems which perform the major social functions having locality relevance” (Lyman & Potter, 2007p. 74).
Owing to the fact that a community is recognized by its organization of social activities and its conceptualizations of locality relevance dimensions in terms of access points to the social activities and functions necessary for daily living, Warren (1973) identified five major community functions namely
- production-distribution-consumption,
- socialization,
- social control,
- social participation,
- mutual support (Lyman & Potter, 2007).
The relationship between the social institution and organized crime comes into light when these community functions fail to function properly. For example, the failure of the production-distribution-consumption function provides an opening for organized crime to become entrenched in the society as criminal elements seek to take advantage of the legitimate market’s failure to serve consumer populations.
Within the social institution, organized criminal groups may seek profitable and safe investments through utilizing other locality relevance functions such as socialization, social control and social participation (Yarmysh, 2001).
Legitimate businesses, according to Lyman and Potter (2007), serve a variety of functions for organized criminal groups including providing concealment opportunities for illegal activities, availing money-laundering opportunities for illegal profits, and facilitating the existence of high degrees of integration with members of the business community.
Equally, organized criminal groups provide lucrative services to some business practitioners within the social context, though this assertion should not be taken to mean that all business practitioners’ deal with organized criminal groups or that organized crime activity is favorable for business (Lyman & Potter, 2007).
Available literature has also documented how organized crime relates to the social institution by providing benefits to legitimate business operations through activities such as harassment of business competitors, providing extra capital for joint investment ventures, and seeking opportunities for collaborating with management to control labor unions.
Lyman and Potter (2007) acknowledge that “organized crime often provides services and jobs for community residents that the legitimate world cannot or will not supply” (p. 76).
Indeed, it can be argued that organized crime is at the core of the social institution when illegal services (e.g., gambling, prostitution, pornography, drugs) and legitimate business opportunities (e.g., waiters, waitresses, technicians and bartenders) are put into consideration (Lyman & Potter, 2007). Consequently, it is almost impossible to divorce the concept of social institution from organized crime.
Lastly, in terms of theoretical underpinnings, it is argued that relative deprivation and social control theoretical perspective are most applicable to the perspective of social inclusion as it relates to organized crime.
Relative deprivation is basically an ecological approach suggesting that the disparity between communities where the deprived and the wealthy live in close proximity to one another triggers a general feeling of antagonism, aggression and social unfairness on the part of inner-city populace (Lyman & Potter, 2007), while the social control theory postulates that individuals who are involved with a community and demonstrate firm family ties are less likely to engage in prohibited activities than those who do not (Mallory, 2007).
In relative deprivation, it is evident that the inequality between the rich and the poor is likely to disrupt the production-distribution-consumption community function, often giving rise to various forms of organized crime as criminal elements attempt to take advantage of the prevailing situation.
Similarly, in the context of the social control theory, it can be argued that a person who has no capacity to establish a positive relationship with the community is likely to be engaged in crime owing to the fact that the production-distribution-consumption community function is markedly disrupted.
References
Lyman, M.D., & Potter, G.W. (2007). Organized crime (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Mallory, S.L. (2007). Understanding organized crime. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Yarmysh, A.N. (2001). A behavioral model for Ukrainian organized crime groups. Trends in Organized Crime, 6(3/4), 143-149.