Blog

Call for Papers: Global Issues, Cultural Perspectives

We are pleased to announce a call for papers for the International Conference on Cultural and Global Criminology, ‘Global Issues, Cultural Perspectives,’ taking place in Utrecht, the Netherlands, from June 27th to 29th, 2018.

Oude Gracht
The main canal in Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Since 2012, the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate in Cultural and Global Criminology (DCGC Programme), a cooperation between the University of Kent, Utrecht University, ELTE Budapest and University Hamburg, has been training and supervising 37 PhD candidates from all over the world on exciting topics in the field of cultural and global criminology. Staff and PhD candidates from three associate partners (Middlesex University London, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Ghent University) have also been active in conducting research in these fields.

The growth of interest and expertise in the areas of cultural and global criminology has also been reflected in different networks and venues, such as the annual conferences of the American Society of Criminology and the European Society of Criminology, the Dutch and English networks on Cultural Criminology (with six national and international conferences held in London, Amsterdam and Utrecht), and the expansion of networks and curricular programmes in the fields of Globalisation and Crime, Green Criminology, or International Security.

The conference ‘Global Issues, Cultural Perspectives,’ pursues three main aims:

1) To promote and disseminate the work of young (PhD) researchers working in the fields of cultural and global criminology;

2) To exchange and update knowledge being produced by the growing mass of consolidated and starting researchers in the fields of global and cultural criminology, particularly in the areas of eco-crime, crimes of the powerful, transnational organized crime, international security, human rights, migration and media;

3) To encourage and facilitate new partnerships at research and educational levels between individuals or institutions working in the fields of cultural and global criminology.

The conference is organized by the Utrecht School of Law (UU) and is financially supported by the Erasmus+ DCGC program and its four main academic partners. It will be held over three days (27-29 June 2018), featuring four keynote speakers (first and last sessions, to be announced in February) and parallel panel sessions with a maximum of three presenters per panel.

The Keynote speakers are:

• Prof. Yvonne Jewkes (University of Kent)

• Prof. Stephanie Kane (Indiana University)

• Prof. Keith Hayward (University of Copenhagen)

• Prof. Máximo Sozzo (National University of the Littoral)

Next to the regular sessions, an event will be organised to facilitate potential (new or existing) collaborations between individuals or organizations in the fields of education and research on cultural and global criminology.

Submission of abstracts 

You are kindly invited to send panel proposals or individual paper abstracts (max. 200 words) before 1 April 2018. Presenters will be notified by 15 April 2018. Selected contributors will be invited to submit a paper after the conference for a Journal Special Issue and/or an edited book that will result from the conference. Please send your name, affiliation, address, title and abstract to: Tineke Hendrikse (dcgcconference@outlook.com).

Registration

The registration fee is € 100.- and € 25.- for PhD candidates. For past and present DCGC candidates the conference is free. To complete registration, please send an email to Carin Schnitger (wpi-congres@uu.nl) before 15 April 2018 (Please mention the title of the conference, “Global Issues, Cultural Perspectives” in your email). The programme will be available mid May 2018.

For additional questions, please contact Damián Zaitch (d.zaitch@uu.nl) or Dina Siegel (dina.s@uu.nl).

DCGC Candidates and their ‘Sociotechnical Perspectives for Criminology’

Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 9.50.28 PMA recently published special issue of the Kriminologisches Journal, Sociotechical Perspectives for Criminologyfeatures the work of three DCGC candidates: Benedikt Lehmann (2nd cohort), Claudio Altenhain, and Stefano Mazzilli-Daechsel (both 3rd cohort). Edited by Dr Bettina Paul and Simon Egbert at the University of Hamburg, the issue shows how criminological research can benefit from the work done under the banner of science and technology studies (STS), a critical school of thought that challenges instrumentalist interpretations of technology and positivist philosophies of science.

Research Updates: Child Witnesses of Domestic Violence in Ghana & Brazilian Prison Gangs

The criminology department at Eötvös Loránd Univeristy (ELTE) in Budapest recently invited two of its DCGC fellows to discuss their research projects. Here is a summary of their papers:

In her presentation, Child Witnesses of Domestic Violence in Ghana: Breaking the Silence, Lilian Amankwa (5th cohort) highlighted issues pertaining to ‘child witnesses’, an emerging population in recent policy debates and research on domestic violence. She started by noting how the home can have connotations of ‘haven or danger’ to different people. Locking one’s doors and windows might elicit feelings of security for some, but the opposite is true for others who suffer the daily threat of violence behind those closed doors (Issahaku, 2015, p. 67). These ‘daily threats of violence’ are experienced or witnessed not only by adults, but also by children who suffer the ‘toxic’ effects of domestic violence (Grooves, 2001) – internalizing and externalizing consequences – and yet, they have seldom been included as research informants with a relevant voice on such important issues.

IMG_20170609_1336207

Lilian discussed the complex nature of domestic violence and the even more complex situation of child witnesses in reference to a social and cultural context where domestic violence is considered a private matter, guarded by the ‘sanctity of marriage’ and male privileges in the domestic setting, gender roles, issues of masculinities, and the patrilineal and matrilineal decent groups prevalent in Ghana. Arrangements by traditional and religious leaders and the criminal justice system in responding to domestic violence, and specifically to the issue of child witnesses were discussed.

Finally, Lilian gave some insights on her methodological approach, specifically on the use of PhotoVoice to empower and situate children as co-researchers in the production of knowledge on issues affecting them. Reference was made to the effectiveness of PhotoVoice in projecting the situation of ‘child witnesses’ and attracting support from important stakeholders due to the impact of photos taken by children themselves, thereby breaking the silence associated with ‘child witnessing of domestic violence’.

Meanwhile, Vitor Stegemann Dieter (4th cohort) gave a paper entitled ‘Riots, gangs and human rights: consequences of mass incarceration in Brazil’. He argued from a Southern Theory perspective (Carrington, Hogg & Sozzo, 2017) that ‘punitiveness theory’ (Garland, 2001; Pratt, 2002; Simon, 2007; Wacquant, 2009) could not explain two main issues related to Brazil’s enormous and unprecedented mass incarceration. First, the narrow focus on ‘punitive’ trends and its relations to economic and neoliberal politics severely underplays the real victimization and the reconfiguration of prisons and the police during the country’s democratization.

IMG_20170609_1311051Secondly, and most important for the presentation, Brazil also underwent dramatic changes in the organization of criminals inside and outside prisons in major prison gangs (see Biondi, 2006; Dias, 2013). Thus, the Brazilian case shows how agency among ‘lower classes’ (Miller, 1958), even under severe institutional and economic strains, can impact the criminal justice system and transform its structural patterns of organization.

Vitor’s research was undertaken in Southern Brazil during a 7 months period. He had access to two maximum-security prisons and one halfway house in which interviews and participant observation were collected. However, a significant amount of the research also relied on interviews on the streets with ex-convicts, ‘criminals’ and key authorities that shed light on the conflicting culture and behaviours within the ‘criminal milieu’.

 

Bibliography

Biondi, K. (2014). Junto e misturado: uma etnografia do PCC. Editora Terceiro Nome.

Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2016). Southern criminology. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 1-20.

Dias, C. C. N. (2013). PCC: hegemonia nas prisões e monopólio da violência.

Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control (Vol. 367). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Groves, B. M. (2001). “When home isn’t safe: Children and domestic violence.” Smith College Studies in Social Work 71(2): 183-207.

Issahaku, P. A. (2016). “Policy suggestions for combating domestic violence in West Africa.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 36(1/2): 66-85.

Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of social issues, 14(3), 5-19.

Pratt, J. (2002). Punishment and civilization: Penal tolerance and intolerance in modern society. Sage.

Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. Oxford University Press.

Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. duke university Press.

A Not-so-Common Session in NYC

The Common Session in Critical Criminology took place in New York City last week at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center.

Given its theme – “Looking Forward: Resistance, Repression, and Possibility” – the conference grappled with the role of critical criminology in the age of “forty-five” (the very apt sobriquet for a president who has a pathological need to externalize his surname, preferably in big gold letters).

True to the theme, conference attendees participated in the sporadic protests organized in anticipation of forty-five’s first return to his hometown since his inauguration, the same day that House Republicans voted to give the rich a tax cut at the expense of healthcare for the poor.

IMG_20170504_1839088Protests near Trump Tower

A torrential downpour on Friday caused part of the roof in the conference room to collapse, fortunately without incurring injuries.

Despite the rain and Republicans, the conference did end on a positive note with live music and good company to wrap up the 65th session in critical criminology.

Thanks go to the staff and grad students at John Jay’s and CUNY who made it happen.

Upcoming Criminology & Law Conferences 2017

Here are some of the criminology and law conferences to look forward to this year:

British Society of Criminology Annual Conference

Where: Sheffield Hallam University

When: 4 – 7 July

Call for Abstracts Deadline: 26 May

 

Critical Legal Conference: Catastrophe

Where: University of Warwick

When: 1 – 3 September

Call for Abstracts Deadline: 31 May

 

Law and Culture Conference

Where: St Mary’s University, London

When: 7 – 8 September

Call for Abstracts Deadline: 14 May

 

European Society of Criminology Annual Conference

Where: Cardiff University

When: 13 – 16 September

Call for Abstracts Deadline: 15 June

US Incarceration and Tropicalization…in Budapest

ELTE’s criminology department welcomed two guest speakers in January to share findings from the Western hemisphere’s most populous nations, the United States and Brazil.

US_FlagAs the former administrative director of Harvard’s Prison Legal Assistance Program, Sarah Morton has an intimate understanding of incareration in the US. Her lecture (prezi slides here) gave a sobering overview of current American prison practices. With 2.3 million prisoners nationally, the US has the largest incarerated population in the world. This figure masks a complex prison ecology, split across federal, state, and county governments and levels of security.

Morton drew special attention to the waining authority of state parole boards to grant early release, despite theIMG_20170126_1518226 mounting pressure on resources caused by overcrowding. Regrettably, the fear of appearing ‘soft on crime’ has penetrated both major political parties, leading to a punitive arms race. All this despite the blarring racial and economic disparities in the rates of incarceration. Criminologists now face the vital task of monitoring and resisting a new American administration that means to govern through fear and vengence.

Later in the month, Claudio Altenhain of the DCGC’s third cohort spoke of his research on the implementation of Detecta, a ‘smart’ crime monitoring system that the Brazilian state of São Paulo purchased from Microsoft and New York City back in 2014. Altenhain emphasized the ways in which the system, tailored for the specificities of NYC, has mutated as it struggles to adapt to the intricate reality of Brazilian law enforcement. This process of ‘tropicalization’ sheds light on both the limitations of policy migration and the conflicting interests of all the actors involved in Brazil and abroad.

The DCGC’s Transatlantic November

The DCGC was well represented in this year’s American Society of Criminology (ASC) conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, and last week’s Common Session in Critical Criminology at the University of Ghent, Belgium.

At the ASC, candidates from the first, third, and fifth cohorts gave papers, but mostly cruised around town in search of breakfast, bourbon, live music, and cajun cookin’ (not necessarily in that order). NOLA delivered on all counts, not to mention its very agreeable summer-in-November weather.

????????????????????????????????????A special note of congratulations goes to Jordan Mazurek of the fifth cohort for receiving the Graduate Student Paper Award from the ASC’s Critical Criminology Division for his paper “Nemo’s Plight: Political Economy, Green-Cultural Criminology, and Fish Abuse.”

EPSON scanner imageOn the other side of the pond, the second Common Session of 2016 took place in the distinctly cooler city of Ghent. This time, the DCGC was represented by candidates from the third, fourth, and fifth cohorts. UGent’s Olga Petintseva and Tom Decorte put on a solid conference around the theme of ‘Regulating Pleasure.’ But the big takeaway, in two words: Belgian beer.

And speaking of transatlantic, the next Common Session will be held in New York City next May.

Speaking Across Disciplines: Illustrated Notes from a Science and Technology Studies Conference

blog DCGC1_2016I recently attended a science and technology (STS) conference at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) on the general theme of scientific relationships and scientific values. The conference featured some thirty presenters from a wide range of (almost exclusively) german-speaking institutions. Organized by the Interdisciplinary Network for Studies in Science and Technology (INSIST network), the conference was also affiliated with the Munich Centre for Technology in Society (MCTS), a multi-disciplinary institute at the TUM.

The conference highlighted many of the strengths and limitations of multi-disciplinary gatherings. For those of you who are unfamiliar with STS, it is a loose federation of social scientists who share a general interest in – you guessed it – science and technology. Sociologists, anthropologists, historians, philosophers, this criminologist, and even some wayward ‘natural’ scientists join together to try and make sense of pasts, presents and futures that are unequivocally hybrid in nature. Biological actors mix with social actors that mix with technical actors, and so on and so forth. The world is messy, so are our efforts to make sense of it, and, incidentally, so are our conferences.

Don’t get me wrong. The organizational and logistical aspects of the conference were executed with near surgical (cough, german) precision. But the challenges of speaking across disciplines were on full display from start to finish. Granted, there were recurrent themes and occasional allusions to big STS figures, such as Bruno Latour and Donna Haraway, and for the first time I met face-to-face with others working on my research subject, still multi-disciplinary remains more an ideal than a reality.

We easily forget the terminological shortcuts we use within our tribes to cover as much ground as possible within our allotted twenty minutes. We also neglect the multiple meanings that our words might evoke in the minds of (disciplinary) Others. And yet, these perceived limitations are precisely the kind of constructive (or deconstructive) moments that are less prevalent in mono-cultured academic gatherings. In fact, they neatly illustrate one of the core concepts of STS theory, namely, translation.

When the biologist speaks, I try desperately to fit her words within the landscape of my existing knowledge. I translate her words so that they have meaning for me. Of course, my translation will be a reduction of her original meaning, not least because I can’t translate all of her words, but the process of translation can trigger a new set of associations that produce a new thought or unearth an old one. The process reveals that certain words are far more open to translation than others. This helps us consider which words need greater clarification when we’re on the emitting end of the equation, which words to guard against undesirable interpretations.

Translation also happens at criminology conferences. Actually, it happens every single time two things interact, even within the most intimate of relations. But multi-disciplinary settings provoke unexpected connections by exposing us to the properly foreign and asking us to fend for ourselves.

Oh, and speaking of translation, I could have definitely used a german interpreter because some ninety percent of the presentations were ‘auf Deutsch’…

Multilateral Development Banks and Money Laundering in Eastern Europe

by John Emerich

The role of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in the murky world of Moldovan banking underlines the ways in which multilateral investment banks, by prioritising a growth ‘at any cost‘ model, are allowing themselves to be used as conduits for money-laundering by failing to adequately screen their business partners.

Laundering the proceeds of crime into the ‘clean’ financial sector has always been the challenge for criminal organisations. The days of driving into Switzerland with suitcases stuffed full of cash may well be over, but the modus operandi of illicit enterprises merely evolves – new routes are established, new connections opened, jurisdictions shift in importance as groups probe the integrity of the financial system and search for weak entry points. The scale, scope and complexity of operations are fluid and mirror developments in technology. But one constant will always remain – the complicity of the banking sector.

In 2012 HSBC, one of the world’s largest banks, handed over $2bn to the U.S. Justice Department as punishment for its role in laundering money for the Mexican Sinaloa drugs cartel. Shortly thereafter, BNP Paribas forfeited a colossal $9bn for its role in violating sanctions and money laundering regulations. In fact, a cursory search through the recent history of the world’s leading banks shows their regular involvement in high profile money laundering cases. The new norm, therefore, must be to expect such activities rather than to see them as isolated cases or as individual “compliance failures.”

The EBRD is no different, but worryingly, it uses public funds to finance its activities and therefore any involvement in money laundering means a public subsidy. Set up in 1991 by the governments of 40 market economies (later expanded to 65), along with two institutions (the European Union and the European Investment Bank), its immediate remit was to build markets and promote the emerging private sector in the countries of the former Eastern bloc and ease the transition into western style capitalist states.

Billed as one of the world’s premier development banks, the literature on the Bank’s website points to its “zero tolerance on corruption” and its participation in several global anti-corruption initiatives. However, the EBRD’s involvement in projects that have, by their own admission, featured money laundering poses more questions than it answers – does the Bank knowingly contradict its own procedures and guidelines in its operations? Or, is the Bank merely lax in enforcing such guidelines? Is this tension between governance and implementation sufficient to explain how the EBRD comes to be involved in projects that involve money laundering?LocationMoldova02

One such case is the EBRD’s involvement in financing Viktoriabank – Moldova’s third largest bank with assets of €618 million, total equity of €97 million and €368 million in net loans. Originally given a banking licence in 1989 by the USSR, Viktoriabank survived the events of 1991 and in 1995 received its first tranche of EBRD support. Viktoriabank fits the profile of an EBRD project – a recently privatised financial institution that can be moulded into a western style bank, and one that can be used as a symbol of the new spirit of enterprise in the region.

Until recently the EBRD’s interest in Viktoriabank stood at 15% – a substantial holding, but not enough to give the impression it was controlling the bank. After all, the EBRD’s mission is to create markets, not to control companies. Unexpectedly, in January 2016 the Bank announced plans to take a 50% share of the bank in order to “restore governance.” Clearly something seismic had happened.

In the announcement made by the EBRD head in Moldova, attention was drawn to the potential for criminal infiltration:

Transparency and governance problems in the Moldovan banking sector, coupled with a weak judicial system, have negative implications for investment and financial sector stability. We will continue to work closely with the Moldovan government and regulators to ensure that only transparent, reputable and sound investors can hold shares in Victoriabank and in the country’s banks in general. The banking sector should benefit the Moldovan economy, not the interests of opaque special interest groups.”1

Furthermore, in the same press release the EBRD admits to “a series of non-transparent transactions” in bank shares, and promises to end lending to banks with non-transparent ownership. A brief inspection of Viktoriabank’s previous shareholders reveals a series of characters revolving around a shell company in Cyprus – Insidown Limited, which still owns 39% of shares in the bank. Documents deposited at Cyprus’ chambers of commerce suggest the beneficial owner of Insidown Limited was even at one point a German dentist named Paul Fisher. Quite how a dentist came to own the controlling share in Moldova’s third largest bank via a shell company in the notorious tax haven of Cyprus, must set the alarm bells ringing even to the casual observer. Viktoriabank’s annual report of 20152 lists Sergey Lobanov – a Russian businessman – as the controller of Insidown Limited. For a bank of the EBRD’s stature to admit “serious non-transparent transactions” we can safely assume their magnitude. However, these revelations come a full 9 years after the EBRD admitted that control of Victoriabank’s Supervisory Board had passed to non-transparent shareholders.

The exact ownership of Viktoriabank and the EBRD’s continued support, now for 21 years in total, throws up many questions – why did it take a full 9 years from the point of acknowledging the problems over ownership for the EBRD to do something and seek control of the bank? When the EBRD originally took the decision to fund Viktoriabank, was it aware of the beneficial ownership then? Did it monitor the changing ownership profile? To what extent does the bank’s due diligence procedures prevent it from entering into such transactions that are at risk of money laundering? The questions that could be leveled at the EBRD are numerous. But, as students of criminology, what does this affair have to tell us?

In the rush to “make markets,” powerful international financial institutions such as the EBRD are undoubtedly leaving the door open to abuse by money launderers. Good governance procedures are seen as a cost or burden on the functioning of the financial system and are fought against by the financial services lobby. The global financial architecture established post WW2 (the Bretton Woods System) has, sadly, not been an issue with which criminology has found much meaningful engagement. Parochial in its concerns, criminology has often saved its energies to pursue the crimes of the powerless, whilst leaving the network of the global financial elite relatively untouched.

The case of the EBRD, Viktoriabank and the Moldovan banking sector on the surface may at first seem distant – but it touches on many themes that have come to shape globalisation itself; emerging markets, the interplay between public and private sector, capital flows from East to West, secrecy and transparency and the ever-increasing ways in which the financial services sector mediates our lives. All these processes that shape our world have a relationship with crime and should be afforded more attention by criminologists. Our challenge should be to critically engage with what is happening in front us, to inspect finance and financial intermediaries and to offer a public counter-narrative. Only then can criminology claim to be a credible and progressive pursuit.

1 http://www.ebrd.com/news/2015/ebrd-seeks-a-larger-stake-in-moldovas-victoriabank.html

2 http://www.victoriabank.md/uploads/default/0001/01/bf1bb1f14769300b8673692a0b9c128f4c1112e5.pdf

Wall Won’t Keep Drugs Out of U.S.

AOld_concrete_wallThere is a lot of shouting these days about the need for a wall along the Mexican-American border. If we tune out the vacuous rhetoric emanating from the sadder voices in American politics, we are able to consider the fallacies that such a culturally and environmentally damaging proposal hinges on.

Wall wailers argue that a physical barrier would dramatically curb the flow of unauthorized immigration and illicit drugs into the United States. Criminologists are well aware that official data on any illegal activity – be it domestic or international – paints an extremely limited picture of the real situation, given the ever-looming ‘dark figure’ of undetected, unreported, and undocumented crime, and the matter at hand is no exception to the rule. Nevertheless, strong evidence suggests that a wall would do very little to prevent drug trafficking or unauthorized immigration.

While it is true that many migrants attempt to enter the U.S. without inspection,  researchers at the Center for Migration Studies argue that “the number of [undocumented migrants] who stayed beyond the period authorized by their temporary visas (overstays) exceeded the number who entered across the southern land border without inspection (EWIs) in each year from 2008 to 2012” (Warren & Kerwin 2015: 81). According to their estimates, overstays accounted for as much as fifty-eight percent of all unauthorized arrivals in a given year since 2008. Evidently, a wall does little to prevent visa overstays.

The counter-argument is that EWIs could include migrants who would otherwise be inadmissible due to criminal records or ties to terrorist organizations. And yet research consistently shows that “immigration – even if illegal – is associated with lower crime rates in most disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods” (Sampson 2008: 29).

At this point in the debate, conservatives who might concede these points on unauthorized immigration frequently fall back on the claim that a wall would choke the supply of illicit substances that enter through the Mexican-American border.

Indeed, the vast majority of South American cocaine enters the U.S. via Mexico and American law enforcement seizures of heroin along the border have increased significantly over the past several years, according to U.S. State Department’s 2015 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.

The real question, however, is how do these drugs cross the border?

Answer: Licit and illicit trade flow through the same channels.

In order to minimize risk, the majority of drugs enter the U.S. via ports of entry (POEs) at the border. According to a former drug cartel member, illicit drugs are simply too valuable to risk crossing in the wilderness between POEs (Payan 2006: 32).

Instead, drug trafficking organizations largely prefer smuggling drugs aboard the millions of commercial trucks that carry approximately eighty percent of all U.S.-Mexico trade annually (Hufbauer & Schott 2005: 26) Thanks to the liberalization of trade relations under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the increases in commercial traffic along the border, coupled with much heavier flows of international capital between the two countries, meant that seizing drugs and the resulting profits would be akin to finding a needle in a haystack (Dermota 2000: 16).

U.S. Customs agents can only realistically inspect three percent of all laden trucks that cross the border (Friman & Andreas 1999:134). In fact, as the NAFTA negotiations progressed, a 1993 report written by an intelligence officer stationed at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City confirmed that drug traffickers were purchasing factories, warehouses, and trucking companies in preparation for the NAFTA boom in trade (Wise 1998: 209).

Yes, we’ve seen the tunnels, the warehouses, and perhaps less sophisticated operations do attempt open border crossings, but the inconvenient truth for wall wailers is that the vast majority of the drugs enter through legal channels, much like their beloved Maquiladora made consumer products.

Long story short, even if we disregard the xenophobia and bigotry that is on flagrant display in the wall wailing community – not that we should – their proposal does next to nothing to cast off the ‘evils’ of the outside. Instead, it sends a message of fear and ignorance that, heaven forbid, might just bear the name of an ignorant fear-monger.

Bibliography

Andreas, Peter (1996) “U.S. Mexico: Open Markets, Closed Border”. Foreign Policy: No. 103, pp.51-69.

Dermota, Ken (2000) “Snow Business: Drugs and the Spirit of Capitalism.” World Policy Journal: Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 15-24.

Friman, Richard H. and Andreas, Peter (1999) The Illicit Global Economy & State Power. New York:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Hufbauer, Gary C. and Schott, Jeffrey J (2005) NAFTA Revisited Achievements and Challenges.
Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.

Payan, Tony (2006) The Three U.S.-Mexico Border Wars. West Port: Praeger Security International.

Sampson, Robert J. (2008) “Rethinking Crime and Immigration” Context: Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 28–33.

Warren, Robert and Kerwin, Donald (2015) “Beyond DAPA and DACA: Revisiting Legislative Reform in Light of Long-Term Trends in Unauthorized Immigration to the United States” Journal on Migration and Human Security: Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.80-108.

Wise, Carol (1998) Post-NAFTA Political Economy: Mexico and the Western Hemisphere. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press

World Drug Report 2011. Rep. New York: United Nations.