Bureaucratic and patrimonial theories of organized crime tend to miss the history and mobility of crime groups integrating into and organizing with legitimate society. The network property of multiplexity—when more than one type of relationship exists between a pair of actors—offers a theoretical and empirical inroad to analyzing overlapping relationships of seemingly disparate social spheres. Using the historical case of organized crime in Chicago and a unique relational database coded from more than 5,000 pages of archival documents, we map the web of multiplex relationships among bootleggers, politicians, union members, businessmen, families, and friends. We analyze the overlap of criminal, personal, and legitimate networks containing 1,030 individuals and 3,726 mutual dyads between them. Multiplexity is rare in these data: only 10 percent of the mutual dyads contain multiplex ties. However, results from bivariate exponential random graph models demonstrate that multiplexity is a relevant structural property binding the three networks together. Even among our sample of criminals, we find dependencies between the criminal and personal networks and the criminal and legitimate networks. Although not pervasive, multiplexity glued these worlds of organized crime together above and beyond the personalities of famous gangsters, ethnic homophily, and other endogenous network processes.
adamsjimiMoodyJamesMorrisMartina. 2013. “Sex, Drugs and Race: How Behaviors Differentially Contribute to STI-Risk Network Structure.” American Journal of Public Health103(2):322–29.
2.
adamsjimiMoodyJamesMuthStephen Q.MorrisMartina. 2012. “Quantifying the Benefits of Link-Tracing Designs for Partnership Network Studies.” Field Methods24(2):175–93.
3.
AsalVictorRethemeyerR. KarlAndersonIan. 2009. “Big Allied and Dangerous (BAAD) Database 1 - Lethality Data, 1998–2005.” Project on Violent Conflict (http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/16062).
4.
BakerWayne E.FaulknerRobert R.1993. “The Social Organization of Conspiracy: Illegal Networks in the Heavy Electric Equipment Industry.” American Sociological Review58(6):837–60.
5.
BakkerRene M.RaabJorgMilwardH. Brinton. 2012. “A Preliminary Theory of Dark Network Resilience.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management31(1):33–62.
6.
BearmanPeterFarisRobertMoodyJames. 1999. “Blocking the Future: New Solutions for Old Problems in Historical Social Science.” Social Science History23(4):501–533.
7.
BeggsJohn J.HainesValerie A.HurlbertJeanne S.1996. “Revisiting the Rural-Urban Contrast: Personal Networks in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Settings.” Rural Sociology6(2):306–325.
8.
BellDaniel. 1953. “Crime as an American Way of Life.” Antioch Review13(2):131–54.
9.
BienenLeigh B.RottinghausBrandon. 2002. “Learning from the Past, Living in the Present: Understanding Homicide in Chicago, 1870–1930.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology92(3–4):437–554.
10.
BlokAnton.1974. The Mafia in a Sicilian Village, 1860–1960: A Study of Violent Peasant Entrepreneurs. New York: Harper and Row.
11.
BoissevainJeremy. 1974. Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators, and Coalitions. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
12.
BottElizabeth. 1957. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. London, UK: Tavistock Publications Limited.
13.
BrassDaniel J.GalaskiewiczJosephGreveHenrich R.TsaiWenpin. 2004. “Taking Stock of Networks and Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective.” Academy of Management Journal47(6):795–817.
14.
BreigerRonald L.SchoonEricMelamedDavidAsalVictorRethemeyerR. Karl. 2014. “Comparative Configurational Analysis as a Two-Mode Network Problem: A Study of Terrorist Group Engagement in the Drug Trade.” Social Networks36(1):24–39.
15.
Chicago Daily Tribune. 1920. “Friends Launch Aldermanic Boom for Young Newsie.” January8, p. 17.
16.
Chicago Daily Tribune. 1927. “‘You Can All Go Thirsty’ Is Al Capone’s Adieu.” December6, pp. 1, 6.
17.
Chicago Daily Tribune. 1931. “Reveal Evidence of $54,000,000 City Food Fraud.” April5, p. 7.
18.
CollinsRandall. 2011. “Patrimonial Alliances and Failures of State Penetration: A Historical Dynamic of Crime, Corruption, Gangs, and Mafias.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science636(1):16–31.
19.
CookKaren S.HardinRussellLeviMargaret. 2005. Cooperation without Trust?New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20.
CoontzStephanie. 1988. The Social Origins of Private Life: A History of American Families, 1600–1900. New York: Verso.
21.
DurkheimEmile.[1893] 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.
22.
EriksonEmily. 2014. Between Monopoly and Free Trade: The English East India Company, 1600–1757. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
FischerClaude S.1982. To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
FischerClaude S.2011. Still Connected: Family and Friends in America since 1970. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
FrankOveStraussDavid. 1986. “Markov Graphs.” Journal of the American Statistical Association81(395):832–42.
26.
GondalNehaMcLeanPaul D.2013. “Linking Tie-Meaning with Network Structure: Variable Connotations of Personal Lending in a Multiple-Network Ecology.” Poetics41(2):122–50.
27.
GoodreauSteven M.KittsJames A.MorrisMartina. 2009. “Birds of a Feather, or Friend of a Friend? Using Exponential Random Graph Models to Investigate Adolescent Social Networks.” Demography46(1):103–125.
28.
GouldRoger V.1991. “Multiple Networks and Mobilization in the Paris Commune, 1871.” American Sociological Review56(6):716–29.
29.
GranovetterMark S.1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology78(6):1360–80.
30.
GranovetterMark S.1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology91(3):481–510.
31.
HallerMark H.1971. “Organized Crime in Urban History: Chicago in the Twentieth Century.” Journal of Social History5(2):210–34.
32.
HaynieDana L.2001. “Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter?” American Journal of Sociology106(4):1013–57.
33.
HeaneyMichael T.2014. “Multiplex Networks and Interest Group Influence Reputation: An Exponential Random Graph Model.” Social Networks36(1):66–81.
34.
HeckathornDouglas D.1997. “Respondent-Driven Sampling: A New Approach to the Study of Hidden Populations.” Social Problems44(2):174–99.
35.
HuitsingGijsvan DujinMarijtje A. J.SnijdersTom A. B.WangPengSainioMiiaSalmivalliChristinaVeenstraRene. 2012. “Univariate and Multivariate Models of Positive and Negative Networks: Liking, Disliking, and Bully–Victim Relationships.” Social Networks34(4):645–57.
36.
IanniFrancis A. J.Reuss-IanniJ. Elizabeth. 1972. A Family Business: Kinship and Social Control in Organized Crime. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
37.
KadushinCharles. 2012. Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
KrohnMarvin D.MasseyJames L.ZielinskiMary. 1988. “Role Overlap, Network Multiplexity, and Adolescent Deviant Behavior.” Social Psychology Quarterly51(4):346–56.
39.
LandescoJohn.[1929] 1968. Organized Crime in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
LazegaEmmanuelPattisonPhilippa E.1999. “Multiplexity, Generalized Exchange and Cooperation in Organizations: A Case Study.” Social Networks21(1):67–90.
41.
LewisKevin. 2013. “The Limits of Racial Prejudice.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(47):18814–19.
42.
LombardoRobert M.2013. Organized Crime in Chicago: Beyond the Mafia. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
43.
LusherDeanKoskinenJohanRobinsGarry L., eds. 2013. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
LusherDeanRobinsGarry L.PattisonPhilippa E.LomiAlessandro. 2012. “‘Trust Me’: Differences in Expressed and Perceived Trust Relations in an Organization.” Social Networks34(4):410–24.
45.
MalmAili E.BichlerGisela M.Van De WalleStephanie. 2010. “Comparing the Ties that Bind Criminal Networks: Is Blood Thicker than Water?” Security Journal23(1):52–74.
46.
McFarlandDaniel A.MoodyJamesDiehlDavidSmithJeffrey A.ThomasReuben J.2014. “Network Ecology and Adolescent Social Structure.” American Sociological Review79(6):1088–121.
47.
MertonRobert K.1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review3(5):672–82.
48.
MoodyJamesWhiteDouglas R.2003. “Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups.” American Sociological Review68(1):103–127.
49.
MorselliCarlo. 2003. “Career Opportunities and Network-Based Privileges in the Cosa Nostra.” Crime, Law and Social Change39(4):383–418.
50.
PadgettJohn F.AnsellChristopher K.1993. “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434.” American Journal of Sociology98(6):1259–1319.
51.
PapachristosAndrew V.HureauDavid M.BragaAnthony A.2013. “The Corner and the Crew: The Influence of Geography and Social Networks on Gang Violence.” American Sociological Review78(3):417–47.
52.
PapachristosAndrew V.SmithChris M.2014. “The Embedded and Multiplex Nature of Al Capone.” Pp. 97–115 in Crime and Networks, edited by MorselliC.New York: Routledge.
53.
ParigiPaoloHenson IIWarner. 2014. “Social Isolation in America.” Annual Review of Sociology40:153–71.
54.
PattilloMary E.1998. “Sweet Mothers and Gangbangers: Managing Crime in a Black Middle-Class Neighborhood.” Social Forces76(3):747–74.
55.
PattisonPhilippa E.WassermanStanley. 1999. “Logit Models and Logistic Regressions for Social Networks: II. Multivariate Relations.” British Journal of Mathematic and Statistical Psychology52(2):169–93.
56.
PedahzurAmiPerligerArie. 2006. “The Changing Nature of Suicide Attacks: A Social Network Perspective.” Social Forces84(4):1987–2008.
57.
PescosolidoBernice A.RubinBeth A.2000. “The Web of Group Affiliations Revisited: Social Life, Postmodernism, and Sociology.” American Sociological Review65(1):52–76.
58.
QuintaneEric. 2013. “Comparing Networks: Structural Correspondence between Behavioral and Recall Networks.” Pp. 272–83 in Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications, edited by LusherD.KoskinenJ.RobinsG. L.New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
RainieLeeWellmanBarry. 2012. Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
60.
RussoGus G.2001. The Outfit: The Role of Chicago’s Underworld in the Shaping of Modern America. New York: Bloomsbury.
61.
RuthDavid E.1996. Inventing the Public Enemy: The Gangster in American Culture, 1918–1934. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62.
SagemanMarc. 2004. Understanding Terror Networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
63.
SimmelGeorg. 1955. Conflict & the Web of Group Affiliations. Translated by WolffK. H.BendixR.New York: The Free Press.
64.
SrivastavaSameer B.BanajiMahzarin R.2011. “Culture, Cognition, and Collaborative Networks in Organizations.” American Sociological Review76(2):207–233.
65.
TönniesFerdinand.[1887] 1957. Community and Society: Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Translated by LoomisC. P.East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
66.
UzziBrian. 1996. “The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performances of Organizations: The Network Effect.” American Sociological Review16(4):674–98.
67.
UzziBrian. 1999. “Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing.” American Sociological Review64(4):481–505.
68.
VenkateshSudhir Alladi. 2006. Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69.
VerbruggeLois M.1979. “Multiplexity in Adult Friendships.” Social Forces57(4):1286–1309.
70.
WangPeng. 2013. “Exponential Random Graph Model Extensions: Models for Multiple Networks and Bipartite Networks.” Pp. 115–28 in Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications, edited by LusherD.KoskinenJ.RobinsG. L.New York: Cambridge University Press.
WassermanStanleyFaustKatherine. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
73.
WassermanStanleyPattisonPhilippa E.1996. “Logit Models and Logistic Regressions for Social Networks: I. An Introduction to Markov Graphs and p*.” Psychometrika61(3):401–425.
74.
WellmanBarry. 1979. “The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers.” American Journal of Sociology84(5):1201–31.
75.
WimmerAndreasLewisKevin. 2010. “Beyond and Below Racial Homophily: ERG Models of a Friendship Network Documented on Facebook.” American Journal of Sociology116(2):583–642.
76.
XuJenniferChenHsinchun. 2008. “The Topology of Dark Networks.” Communications of the ACM51(10):58–65.
77.
ZhaoYuRankOlaf. 2013. “Interdependencies between Working Relations: Multivariate ERGMs for Advice and Satisfaction.” Pp. 213–25 in Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications, edited by LusherD.KoskinenJ.RobinsG. L.New York: Cambridge University Press.
78.
ZimmermanGregory M.MessnerSteven F.2010. “Neighborhood Context and the Gender Gap in Adolescent Violent Crime.” American Sociological Review75(6):958–80.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
