Violence is commonly viewed as an inherent attribute of the drug trade. Yet, there is dramatic variation in drug violence within countries afflicted by drug trafficking. This article advances a novel framework that explains how the interaction between two critical variables, the cohesion of the state security apparatus, and the competition in the illegal market determines traffickers’ incentives to employ violence. The analysis introduces a generally overlooked dimension of violence, its visibility. Visibility refers to whether traffickers publicly expose their use of violence or claim responsibility for their attacks. Drawing on fieldwork in five cities in Colombia and Mexico (Cali, Medellin, Ciudad Juárez, Culiacán, and Tijuana), 175 interviews, and a new data set on drug violence, I argue that violence becomes visible and frequent when trafficking organizations compete and the state security apparatus is fragmented. By contrast, violence becomes less visible and less frequent when the criminal market is monopolized and the state security apparatus is cohesive.
AlonsoManuelValenciaGerman. 2008. “Balance del Proceso de Desmovilización, Desarme y Reinserción (DDR) de los Bloques Cacique Nutibara y Héroes de Granada en la Ciudad de Medellín.” Estudios Políticos33:11–34.
2.
AlonsoManuelGiraldoJorgeSierraDiego. 2007. “Medellín: El Complejo Camino de la Competencia Armada.” In La Parapolítica. La Ruta de la Expansión Paramilitar y los Acuerdos Politicos, edited by RomeroMauricio, 109–45. Bogotá, Colombia: Corporación Nuevo Arcoiris.
3.
AlvaradoArturo. 1997. “Las elecciones para Gobernador de Sinaloa en 1992.” In La Disputa del Reino. Elecciones para Gobernador en Mexico en 1992, edited by DiazRafael Loyola, 278–306. Mexico: FLACSO.
4.
AndreasPeter. 2011. “Illicit Globalization: Myths, Misconceptions, and Historical Lessons.” Political Science Quarterly126 (3): 1–23.
5.
AndreasPeterWallmanJoel. 2009. “Illicit Markets and Violence: What Is the Relationship?” Crime, Law and Social Change52 (3): 225–29.
6.
AriasEnrique Desmond. 2013. “The Impacts of Differential Armed Dominance of Politics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.” Studies in Comparative International Development48 (3): 263–85.
7.
ArjonaAna. 2010. “Social Order in Civil War.” PhD diss., Yale University, New Haven, CT.
8.
AstorgaLuis. 2005. El Siglo de las Drogas. Mexico City, México: Plaza & Janés.
9.
AstorgaLuisShirkDavid. 2010. “Drug Trafficking Organizations and Counter-drug Strategies in the U.S.-Mexican Context.” Working Paper Series on U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Mexico Project and Transborder Institute, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA.
10.
Camacho-GuizadoAlvaro. 1994. “La Reforma de la Policía Colombiana. ¿Esperanzas o frustraciones?” Nueva Sociedad129:27–40.
11.
Casas DupuyPablo. 2005. Reformas y Contrarreformas en la Policía Colombiana. Bogotá, Colombia: Fundación Seguridad y Democracia.
12.
CastilloJuan CamiloMejiaDanielRestrepoPascual. 2013. “Illegal Drug Markets and Violence in Mexico: The Causes beyond Calderón.” Workshop on Illegal Drug Markets, Crime and Violence in Latin America, UCLA Latin American Institute and America Latina Crime and Policy Network, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
13.
CastilloNemesio2009 “Capital Social y Nivel de Cohesión en Ciudad Juárez.” In Diagnóstico Sobre la Realidad Social, Económica y Cultural de los Entornos Locales para el Diseño de Intervenciones en Materia de Prevención y Erradicación de la Violencia en la Región Norte: El caso de Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, coordinated by LaurencioBarraza296–323. Mexico: Secretaria de Gobernación.
14.
ChepesiukRonald. 2003. The Bullet or the Bribe: Taking Down Colombia’s Cali Drug Cartel. Westport, CT: Praeger.
15.
Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación (CNRR), Colombia. 2011. La Huella Invisible de la Guerra: Desplazamiento Forzado en la Comuna 13. Informe del Grupo de Memoria Histórica de la Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación. Bogotá: Ediciones Semana
16.
DavisDiane. 2010. “Irregular Armed Forces, Shifting Patterns of Commitment, and Fragmented Sovereignty in the Developing World.” Theory and Society39:397–413.
17.
DellMelissa. 2014. “Trafficking Networks and the Mexican Drug War.” Forthcoming inAmerican Economic Review.
18.
“Desarticulada en Medellín Red Logística de las FARC: Trabajo conjunto ha sido clave.” Entrevista con General Leonardo Gallego, El Colombiano, September 13, 2003.
19.
DornNicholasMurjiK.SouthN.. 1992. Traffickers, Drug Markets, and Law Enforcement. London, UK: Routledge.
20.
“En Juarez ejército se dedico a ver pugna entre carteles: consulado EU.” La Jornada, March, 11, 2010.
21.
FearonJames. 2004. “Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer than Others?” Journal of Peace Research41 (3): 275–301.
22.
FrimanRichard. 2004. “Forging the Vacancy Chain: Law Enforcement Efforts and Mobility in Criminal Economies.” Crime, Law and Social Change41:53–77.
23.
FrimanRichard. 2009. “Drug Markets and the Selective Use of Violence.” Crime, Law and Social Change52 (3): 285–95.
24.
GambettaDiego. 2009. Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
GoldsteinPaul. 1997. “The Relationship between Drugs and Violence in the United States of America.” World Drug Report, UNODC, Vienna, Austria.
26.
GootenbergPaul. 2012. “Cocaine’s Long March North 1900-2010.” Latin American Politics and Society54 (1): 159–79.
27.
GuzmanAlvaroCamachoAlvaro. 1990. Colombia, Ciudad y Violencia. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Foro Nacional.
KaldorMary. 2001. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
KalyvasStathis. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
KruijtDirkKooningsKeese. 1999. Societies of Fear: The Legacy of Civil War, Violence and Terror in Latin America. London, UK: Zed Books.
32.
LankinaTomila. 2012. “Sisyphean Endeavor or Worthwhile Undertaking?: Transcending Within Nation, Within Region Sub-national Democracy Analysis.” Comparative Democratization Newsletter, American Political Science Association10 (1): 2–14.
33.
LeeRensselaerThoumiFrancisco. 1999. “The Political-criminal Nexus in Colombia.” Trends in Organized Crime5 (2): 59–84.
34.
LessingBenjamin. 2012. “The Logic of Violence in Criminal War: Cartel-state Conflict in Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil.” PhD Diss., University of California, Berkeley.
35.
LiebermanEvan. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review99:435–52.
36.
MolzahnCoryRodriguezOctavioShirkDavid. 2013. Drug Violence in Mexico: Data and Analysis through 2012. San Diego, CA: Transborder Institute, University of San Diego.
37.
MoncadaEduardo. 2013. “The Politics of Urban Violence: Challenges for Development in the Global South.” Comparative Political Studies48 (3): 217–40.
38.
MooreMolly. 1997. “Drug Traffickers Thrive Amid Tijuana Terror.” Washington Post, February 16, 1997.
39.
MoserCarolineRodgersDenis. 2005. Change, Violence and Insecurity in Non-conflict Situations. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.
40.
NaimMoises. 2006. Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers, and Copycats Are Hijacking the Global Economy. New York: Anchor Books.
41.
OsorioJavier. 2013. “Hobbes on Drugs: Understanding Drug Violence in Mexico.” PhD Diss., University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.
42.
“Queríamos que Castaño llegara a la Presidencia.” El Espectador, September 28, 2013.
43.
ReuterPeter. 1989. Disorganized Crime. The Economics of the Invisible Hand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
ReuterPeter. 2009. “Systemic Violence in Drug Markets.” Crime, Law and Social Change52 (3): 275–84.
45.
RiosViridiana. 2012. “Why Did Mexico Become so Violent? A Self-reinforcing Violent Equilibrium Caused by Competition and Enforcement.” Trends in Organized Crime16 (2): 1–18.
46.
RiosViridianaShirkDavid. 2011. Drug violence in Mexico: Data and Analysis through 2010. San Diego, CA: Transborder Institute, University of San Diego
47.
RodriguezGilbertoRodriguezMiguel. 2005. Las Confesiones Secretas de Miguel y Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela. Bogotá, Colombia: Quintero.
48.
RossMichael. 2004. “What Do We Know about Natural Resources and Civil War?” Journal of Peace Research41 (3): 337–56.
49.
SerranoMonica. 2007. “Narcotráfico y Gobernabilidad en México.” Pensamiento Iberoamericano1:251–78.
50.
ShirkDavid A.WallmanJoel. 2015. “Understanding Mexico’s Drug Violence.” Journal of Conflict Resolution59 (8): 1348–76.
51.
SkaperdasStergios. 2001. “The Political Economy of Organized Crime: Providing Protection When the State Does Not.” Economics of Governance2:173–202.
52.
SkaperdasStergiosKonradKai. 2012. “The Market for Protection and the Origin of the State.” Economic Theory50 (2): 417–443.
53.
SnyderRichard. 2001. “Scaling Down: The Subnational Comparative Method.” Studies in Comparative International Development36 (1): 93–110.
54.
SnyderRichardDuran-MartinezAngelica. 2009. “Does Illegality Breed Violence: Drug Trafficking and State Sponsored Protection Rackets.” Crime, Law and Social Change52 (3): 253–73.
55.
StanilandPaul. 2012. “Cities on Fire: Social Mobilization, State Policy, and Urban Insurgency.” Comparative Political Studies43 (12): 1623–49.
56.
“Violencia en Juarez por falta de coordinación: Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos.” La Jornada, February 21, 2010.
57.
WilliamsPhil. 2002. “Cooperation among Criminal Organizations.” In Transnational Organized Crime and International Security: Business as Usual?, edited by BerdalMatsSerranoMonica, 67–80. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
58.
YoungersColettaRosinEileen, eds. 2005. Drugs and Democracy in Latin America: The Impact of U.S. Policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
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.
