The International journal on drug policy · 2015
Transnational cocaine and heroin flow networks in western Europe: A comparison.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chandra Siddharth, Joba Johnathan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A comparison of the properties of drug flow networks for cocaine and heroin in a group of 17 western European countries is provided with the aim of understanding the implications of their similarities and differences for drug policy.
METHODS: Drug flow data for the cocaine and heroin networks were analyzed using the UCINET software package. Country-level characteristics including hub and authority scores, core and periphery membership, and centrality, and network-level characteristics including network density, the results of a triad census, and the final fitness of the core-periphery structure of the network, were computed and compared between the two networks.
RESULTS: The cocaine network contains fewer path redundancies and a smaller, more tightly knit core than the heroin network. Authorities, hubs and countries central to the cocaine network tend to have higher hub, authority, and centrality scores than those in the heroin network. The core-periphery and hub-authority structures of the cocaine and heroin networks reflect the west-to-east and east-to-west patterns of flow of cocaine and heroin respectively across Europe. The key nodes in the cocaine and heroin networks are generally distinct from one another.
CONCLUSION: The analysis of drug flow networks can reveal important structural features of trafficking networks that can be useful for the allocation of scarce drug control resources. The identification of authorities, hubs, network cores, and network-central nodes can suggest foci for the allocation of these resources. In the case of Europe, while some countries are important to both cocaine and heroin networks, different sets of countries occupy positions of prominence in the two networks. The distinct nature of the cocaine and heroin networks also suggests that a one-size-fits-all supply- and interdiction-focused policy may not work as well as an approach that takes into account the particular characteristics of each network.
METHODS: Drug flow data for the cocaine and heroin networks were analyzed using the UCINET software package. Country-level characteristics including hub and authority scores, core and periphery membership, and centrality, and network-level characteristics including network density, the results of a triad census, and the final fitness of the core-periphery structure of the network, were computed and compared between the two networks.
RESULTS: The cocaine network contains fewer path redundancies and a smaller, more tightly knit core than the heroin network. Authorities, hubs and countries central to the cocaine network tend to have higher hub, authority, and centrality scores than those in the heroin network. The core-periphery and hub-authority structures of the cocaine and heroin networks reflect the west-to-east and east-to-west patterns of flow of cocaine and heroin respectively across Europe. The key nodes in the cocaine and heroin networks are generally distinct from one another.
CONCLUSION: The analysis of drug flow networks can reveal important structural features of trafficking networks that can be useful for the allocation of scarce drug control resources. The identification of authorities, hubs, network cores, and network-central nodes can suggest foci for the allocation of these resources. In the case of Europe, while some countries are important to both cocaine and heroin networks, different sets of countries occupy positions of prominence in the two networks. The distinct nature of the cocaine and heroin networks also suggests that a one-size-fits-all supply- and interdiction-focused policy may not work as well as an approach that takes into account the particular characteristics of each network.