Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 261–281 | Cite as

The incantations of the EU organised crime policy making



This article provides an analysis of the knowledge base of organised crime assessments and policy making in the European Union. It is argued that the current European organised crime (threat) assessments are no reliable and relevant instruments to make meaningful statements about organised crime. The data collection system of the current assessments is defective and to a large extent dependant on what Member States decide to disclose and not based on clear developed concepts, definitions and methods. There is no discernable “counting unit” as a basis for deducing threats or risks. More fundamental: the definition or criteria list used is defective, providing no basis for further deductions or conclusions. The conclusions of the open versions of the European reports are of a very general nature, not substantially different from what can be found in open sources. Though European decision making claims to be founded on these assessments, it looks more like a ritual incantation than a knowledge based process.


Member State Drug Trafficking Illegal Immigration Criminal Organisation Criminal Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black, C., Vander Beken, T., Frans, B., & Paternotte, M. (2001). Reporting on organised crime. A shift from explanation to description in the Belgian annual report on organised crime. Antwerp-Apeldoorn: Maklu.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Behr, H. G. (1985). Organisiertes Verbrechen. Düsseldorf: Econ Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castle, A. (2008). Measuring the impact of law the enforcement on organized crime. Trends in Organized Crime. doi: 10.1007/s12117-008-9030.
  5. 5.
    Charter, D. (2008). Secret report reveals massive MEP fraud. The Times, 26 February.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Council of the European Union (1997). 6204/2/97. ENFOPOL 35, Brussels, 21 April 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Council of the European Union (1999). 8469/99. CRIMORG 55, Brussels, 19 May 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Council of the European Union (2000). 14942/00. CRIMORG 173/ CATS 72, Brussels, 22 December 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Council of the European Union (2001). 7825/01. CRIMORG 34, Brussels, 20 March 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Council of the European Union (2001). 14959/1/01. CRIMORG 133, Brussels, 10 December 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Council of the European Union (2004). 16054/04. The Hague Programme for strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, 13 December 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Council of the European Union (2005). 9778/2/05. Council and commission action plan implementing The Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, 10 June 2005.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Council of the European Union (2005). 10180/4/05. Council conclusions on intelligence-led policing and the development of ht Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA), 3 October 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Council of the European Union (2006). 10181/06. CRIMORG 94, Brussels, 6 June 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Council of the European Union (2007). 7547/3. CRIMORG 57 ENFOPOL 50 ENFOCUSTOM 50, Brussels 15 May 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Di Nicola, A., & McCallister, A. (2006). Existing approaches of risk assessment. European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research, 12, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Duyne, P. C. (s.d.). Searching the organised crime knowledge grail. Disorganised EU threat methodology (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Duyne, P. C. (1995). Het spook en de dreiging van de georganiseerde misdaad. The Hague: SDU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Duyne, P. C. (2003). Medieval thinking and organized crime economy. In E. Viano, J. Magallanes, & L. Bridel (Eds.), International organized crime: myth, power and profit. Durham: Carolina Academic.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Duyne, P. C. (2004). The creation of a threat image: media, policy making and organised crime. In P. C. van Duyne, M. Jager, K. von Lampe, & J. L. Newell (Eds.), Threats and phantoms of organised crime, corruption and terrorism (pp. 21–51). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Duyne, P. C. (2007). OCTA 2006: the unfulfilled promise. Trends in Organised Crime, 10, 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Duyne, P. C., Kouwenberg, R., & Romeijn, G. (1990). Misdaadondernemingen. Ondernemende misdadigers in Nederland. Arnhem: Gouda-Quint.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Duyne, P. C., & Levi, M. (2005). Drugs and money. Managing the drug trade and crime-money in Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    European Commission (2005). Communication from the commission to the council and the European Parliament. COM (2005)232 final. Developing a strategic concept on tackling organised crime. 2 June 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    European Commission (2005). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European parliament. The Hague Programme: 10 priorities for the next five years. The partnership for European renewal in the field of freedom, security and justice. OJC 236. 24 September 2005.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction. (2006). Statistical Bulletin.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Europol (2006). OCTA. EU Organised Crime Assessment 2006. Available at Accessed 11 September 2008.
  28. 28.
    Europol (2007). OCTA. EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2007. Available at Accessed 11 September 2008.
  29. 29.
    Fijnaut, C. (1985). Georganiseerde misdaad. Een onderzoek gerichte terreinverkenning. Justitiële Verkenningen, 9, 5–42.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fijnaut, C., Bovenkerk, F., Bruinsma, G. J. N., & van de Bunt, H. G. (1996). Eindrapport georganiseerde criminaliteit in Nederland. Bijlage VII, Inzake Opsporing. Enquêtecommissie Opsporingsmethoden. The Hague: SDU Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fijnaut, C. and Jacobs, J. (Eds.) (1991). Organized crime and its containment: a transatlantic initiative, Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fijnaut, C., & Paoli, L., Eds. (2005). Organised crime in Europe. Concepts, patterns and control policies in the European Union and beyond. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harfield, C. (2006). SOCA. A paradigm shift in British policing. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 743–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Home Affairs Committee (1994). Organised Crime. Minutes of evidence and memoranda. London, 16 November 1994.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kinzig, J., & Luczak, A. (2005). Organised crime in Germany: a passé-partout definition encompassing different phenomena. In C. Fijnaut, & L. Paoli (Eds.), Organised crime in Europe. Concepts, patterns and control policies in the European Union and beyond (pp. 333–356). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klerks, P. (2007). Methodological aspects of the Dutch National Threat Assessment. Trends in Organised Crime, 10, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Küster, D. (1991). Das Lagebild der organisierten Kriminalität in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, illustriert anhand typischer Ermittlungsverfahren. In Organisierte Kriminalität in einem Europa durchlässiger Grenzen. Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    von Lampe, K. (1995). Der lange Abschied vom Mafia-Paradigma. Neue Veröffentlichungen der organized-crime-Forschung. Kriminologisches Journal, 27(4), 298–302.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    von Lampe, K. (1999). Organized crime: Begriff und Theorie organisierter Kriminalität in den USA. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    von Lampe, K. (2001). Not a process of enlightenment: the conceptual history of organized crime in Germany and the United States of America. Forum on Crime and Society, 2, 99–116.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    von Lampe, K. (2005). Making the second step before the first: assessing organized crime. Crime, Law & Social Change, 42, 227–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Levi, M. and Reuter, P. (2006). Money-laundering. The University of Chicago. Accessed 11 September 2008.
  43. 43.
    Luczak, A. (2002). Mafiakraken. Die Konstruktion “organisierte Kriminalität”. Forum Recht Online, 2. Accessed 11 September 2008.
  44. 44.
    Mack, J., & Kerner, H. -J. (1975). The crime industry. Westmead: Saxon House.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    McIntosh, M. (1975). The organisation of crime. London: The Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Middelburg, B. (1988). De mafia in Amsterdam. Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    National Criminal Intelligence Service (1993). Briefing paper. An outline assessment of the threat and impact by organised/enterprise crime upon United Kingdom interests. London: NCIS.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    National Criminal Intelligence Service (1993). Organised crime conference: A threat assessment; a summary of speeches presented at the Police Staff College, Hampshire, 24th–26th May. United Kingdom: OICJ.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Paoli, L., Güller, N., & Palidda, S. (2000). Pilot report to describe and analyse local drug markets. First phase final report: illegal drug markets in Frankfurt and Milan. Lisbon: EMCDDA.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Parlementaire Enquêtecommissie Opsporingsmethoden (1996). Inzake Opsporing. The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Quirke, B. (2008). EU fraud and new member states. The case of the Czech Republic. In P. C. van Duyne, J. Harvey, A. Maljevic, K. von Lampe, & M. Scheinost (Eds.), European crime markets at cross-roads. Extended and extending criminal Europe (pp. 229–244). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rebscher, E., & Vahlenkamp, W. (1988). Organisierte Kriminalität in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Bestandsaufnahme, Entwicklungstendenzen und Bekämpfung aus der Sicht der Polizeipraxis. Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shore, C. (2003). Corruption scandals in America and Europe. Enron and EU fraud in comparative perspective. Social Analysis, 47(3), 147–153.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sieber, U., & Bögel, M. (1993). Logistik der organisieren Kriminalität. Wiesbadem: BKA-Forschungsreihe.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Strang, S. (s.d.). Project SLEIPNIR: An analytical technique for operational priority setting. Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Accessed 11 September 2008.
  56. 56.
    Vander Beken, T. (2004). Risky business: a risk based methodology to measure organized crime. Crime, Law & Social Change, 41, 471–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vander Beken, T., Ed. (2005). Organised crime and vulnerability of economic sectors. Antwerp-Apeldoorn: Maklu.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vander Beken, T. (2005). Beeldvorming en beleid rond georganiseerde criminaliteit in de Europese Unie: indien niet ernstig, gelieve zich te onthouden. Panopticon. Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, Criminologie & Forensisch Welzijnswerk, 27, 30–46.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vander Beken, T., Savona, E., Korsell, L., Defruytier, M., Di Nicola, A., Heber, A., et al. (2005). Measuring organised crime in Europe. A feasibility study of a risk based methodology across the European Union. Antwerp-Apeldoorn: Maklu.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Van Swaaningen, R. (2005). Public safety and the management of fear. Theoretical Criminology, 9(3), 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Verpoest, K., & Vander Beken, T. (2005). The European Union methodology for reporting on organised crime. Available at: Accessed 11 September 2008.
  62. 62.
    Vettori, B. (2006). Comparing data sources on organised crime across the EU. A first step towards an EU statistical apparatus. In P. C. van Duyne, A. Maljevic, M. van Dijck, K. von Lampe, & J. L. Newell (Eds.), The organisation of crime-for-profit. Conduct, law and measurement (pp. 43–67). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weschke, E., & Heine-Heiß, K. (1990). Organisierte Kriminalität als Netzstrukturkriminalität. Berlin: Fachhochschule für Verwaltung und Rechtspflege.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Empirical Penal ScienceTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for International Research on Criminal PolicyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations