Has globalisation rendered the state paradigm in controlling crimes, anachronistic?. The notion of borders, state and new crime typologies
| Pages | 381-399 |
| Date | 30 September 2014 |
| Published date | 30 September 2014 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-04-2013-0026 |
| Author | Norman Mugarura |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & Finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial crime |
Has globalisation rendered the
state paradigm in controlling
crimes, anachronistic?
The notion of borders, state and new
crime typologies
Norman Mugarura
Global Action Research and Development Initiative Limited, Barking, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This purpose of this paper is to explore the dynamics of globalisation on the state’s ability
to ght crimes. Given the complicated dynamics of the global market inuence on crime control and
prevention, the paper has analysed the theory of globalisation and how it manifests itself across or
within different states. While, it is internationally acclaimed that globalisation has become a fact of life,
it needs to be noted that not all countries have been able to harness its benets. Therefore, globalization
has manifested itself differently in different states. This paper examines the dynamics of globalization
on sovereign states in the context of their ability to control and prevent crimes, the inuence of open
border controls, the new crimes typologies, articulating whether modern state approaches are adequate
to caution them against contemporary global challenges.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is written drawing on experiences of the UK, the
European Union and in other jurisdictions farther aeld. I have used a range of secondary data sources
such as analysing data in newspaper, journal papers, textbooks and online sources. The paper has also
drawn on some of my earlier scholarly work but internalised to suit the purposes for writing it.
Findings – This paper nds that unless states rst position themselves properly to pervasive global
changes and challenges, they risk being continuously sidelined (swamped). Globalisation and its
offshoot effects on traditional states approaches have elicited a wide range debates and controversies.
The conclusion one draws in the analysis of the global inuence in ghting traditional and
non-traditional crimes would usually depend on where one stands/leans in contemporary debate on
these twin issues.
Research limitations/implications – The study was undertaken using a qualitative research
methodology, relying heavily on the analysis of secondary data sources. By the very nature of this
methodology, it would have been better to carry out interviews and to gain a rst hand experience on
issues this paper was written on. This is because qualitative research methodology thrives in a natural
setting where the researcher interacts with his/her constituent subjects directly. This would also have
mitigated the potential for bias inherent in the use of secondary data sources.
Practical implications – The paper is important in demonstrating that states need to be more
proactive to benet from globalisation and its inuences. They cannot afford to be laid back lest they are
submerged by pervasive global inuences in its various manifestations. The paper has highlighted that
relaxing border controls could be bad for states because it has the potential to send wrong signals to
dangerous criminals. The state needs to reclaim some of its lost sovereign space to remain relevant in
asserting its inuence on what happens and does not happen inside its borders.
Social implications – States have no choice but to come together and forge common interstate
initiatives. This will enable them to deal with overlapping global exigences effectively. There is no state
(whether it likes or not) that can afford to act unilaterally when it come to overlapping global exigences.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm
State paradigm
in controlling
crimes
381
Journal of Financial Crime
Vol. 21 No. 4, 2014
pp. 381-399
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-04-2013-0026
Originality/value – The analysis of the paper is based on contemporary challenges and narratives of
globalisation and its inuence on crimes control. It is nevertheless written in a distinctive way to foster
the objectives of writing it.
Keywords Globalisation, New crimes typologies, Open borders,
Traditional crime control paradigm
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
This paper examines the dynamics of the global market system and how it
undermines the state’s ability to ght both domestic and cross-border crimes. To
understand the complicated dynamics of the global market inuence on crime
control and prevention, the paper has analysed the theory of globalisation and how
it manifests itself across or within states. While, it is internationally acclaimed that
globalisation has become a fact of life, it needs to be noted that not all countries have
been able to harness its benets. In the area of transnational crimes, such as money
laundering, the concerted efforts of states have helped to overcome limitations
inherent in individual states[1]. For example, foreign banks operating in Uganda
have circumvented the absence of requisite laws by the use of parent grown banking
policies – which are applied to all international branches. Thus, globalisation has
enhanced individual states in overcoming (through the process of harmonisation)
their regulatory disparities. Harmonisation provides a platform for different
jurisdictions to co-exist on varied challenges and also to pursue common interests. If
the domestic and foreign laws are not harmonised by way of adopting an enabling
legislation, the void in the system can be exploited to pave way for regulatory
arbitrage often to the disadvantage of foreign banks[2].
Globalisation has generally displaced the use of traditional state approaches in
ghting overlapping crimes. States which are literally stuck in a slow lane have found it
difcult to cope with the speed and dynamics of the global market system. The dynamic
nature of the global system signies that it could be elusive for some countries to
harness in implementing desired policy changes[3]. While some countries have been
marginalised by the dynamics of the global market system, others have done
remarkably well[4]. On the negative note, it has also become increasingly apparent for
criminal organisations to exploit the system using legitimate international trade such as
using commercial products to consolidate their grip on some countries (Shelley, 1998).
The advent of cyber-markets, offshore nancial centres and increased investment
vehicles are ruthlessly exploited to evade normative regulations and other risk
management models (Elvin et al., 2000).
The emergence of supranational institutions such as the European Union (EU)
coupled by the role of the global media and enhanced technologies and transport
systems means that physical boundaries between states have become more porous
and permeated than ever before (Shelley, 1998). The ofcial line between domestic
and non-domestic crimes has become blurred particularly in the area of crime and
the criminal justice systems (McDonald, 1995). Therefore, this paper articulates the
diminished role of modern states in the context of porous land borders, and new
crime typologies.
JFC
21,4
382
To continue reading
Request your trial