Market Dynamics and Systemic Violence: A Longitudinal Examination of Market Penetration, Entry Deterrence, and Excess Capacity in the Illicit Drug Market

• DOI: 10.1177/0022042620963074
• Published date: 01 January 2021
• Date: 01 January 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042620963074

Journal of Drug Issues

2021, Vol. 51(1) 143 –158

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022042620963074

journals.sagepub.com/home/jod

Article

Market Dynamics and Systemic

Violence: A Longitudinal

Examination of Market

Penetration, Entry Deterrence,

and Excess Capacity in the

Illicit Drug Market

Christopher E. Torres1, Stewart J. D’Alessio1,

and Lisa Stolzenberg1

Abstract

The nexus between lethal violence in the drug market and drug-selling behavior remains a

topic of interest among social scientists. Although the current body of literature demonstrates

strong empirical evidence of systemic violence, questions still endure as to the underlying

causal mechanisms responsible for this violence. This study uses 10 years of prosecution data

aggregated at the county level to investigate whether drug-related homicide is predictive of

first-time drug-selling offending. Results from a pooled cross-sectional time-series analysis

suggest that new entrants are using lethal violence to penetrate the illegal drug market. As

drug-related homicides increase, the percent of first-time offenders being prosecuted for a

drug-selling offense increases markedly. This relationship persists even after controlling for

non–drug-related homicide. This finding suggests that lethal violence is being used primarily by

new drug sellers, possibly to help them gain entry into a competitive drug market.

Keywords

drug dealing, drug incarceration, drug sales offending, systemic violence, market dynamics

Background

Despite broad conceptualizations of drug market violence being influenced heavily by media

sensationalism and misinformation (Coomber, 2015), Goldstein (1985) articulated a coherent

tripartite framework to conceptualize the illicit drug market’s violent milieu. The three classifica-

tions of drug-related violence include psychopharmacological, economic compulsive, and sys-

temic pathways. Psychopharmacological violence stems from the agitation induced by the

psychoactive properties within the drug itself. Economically compulsive violence manifests

1Florida International University, Miami, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christopher E. Torres, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida International University, 11200 SW

8th Street, Miami, FL 33199, USA.

Email: ctorr146@fiu.edu

963074JODXXX10.1177/0022042620963074Journal of Drug IssuesTorres et al.

research-article2020

144 Journal of Drug Issues 51(1)

itself after a drug user’s disposable income is depleted, but the need or desire for drugs remains

consistent (Reuter & Kleiman, 1989).

Finally, systemic violence is rooted in the intrinsic nature of individuals directly involved in

the illicit drug market. Examples of systemic drug violence include territorial disputes between

rival drug dealers, robberies of drug dealers, delinquency on debt payments, and the elimination

of police informants, to list just a few. Systemic violence is considered the most widespread of

the three types of drug-related violence. As Boyd et al. (1991) note, “when illegal drugs are

related to violence, it is usually as a consequence of the industry’s unregulated nature, and not

because of the drug’s consumption that violence occurs” (p. 80). Empirical research supports this

view. Using drug-related homicides as a proxy measure for systemic violence, Goldstein et al.

(1989) examined the effectiveness of the tripartite framework in explaining drug-related violence

in New York City. Their study found that out of 414 homicides under investigation (47% of

which were non–drug related), about 7% were caused by psychopharmacological effects, 2% by

economic compulsion, 39% by systemic means, and 4% were multidimensional. Of the 31 drug-

related homicides caused by psychopharmacological effects, 21 were linked directly to the inges-

tion of alcohol. In stark contrast, there were no cases of violence related to alcohol engendering

economically compulsive or systemic violence. Instead, the substances of crack, cocaine, mari-

juana, and heroin were exclusively associated with systemic violence. Crack was the only sub-

stance associated with economic compulsion.

Other studies also report that systemic violence is the most widespread of the three types of

drug-related violence after controlling for geographic location (Butters, 1997; Hautala et al.,

2019; Moeller & Hesse, 2013), spatiotemporal elements (Contreras & Hipp, 2020), and rural

drug markets (Victor & Staton, 2020). Although most studies on systemic violence gained trac-

tion in the United States (Goldstein et al., 1989; Reuter, 2009), it is essential to note that the

robustness of these findings remains consistent regardless of geographic boundaries. Moeller and

Hesse (2013) evinced a marked association between drug-enforcement efforts and severe vio-

lence in Denmark. This observed increase in systemic violence was attributed to the amplifica-

tion of competition among drug dealers. Hautala et al. (2019) found that for males in Finland,

systemic methods were one of the most consistent pathways to violence in the illicit drug trade.

Finally, Butters (1997) found that in Canadian drug markets, 56% of the violence carried out by

market actors was directly related to systemic operations.

Systemic violence is not only consistent across a wide variety of geographic units, but it also

remains noteworthy on a more granular spatiotemporal level. Contreras and Hipp (2020) link

Goldstein’s definition of systemic violence to the concept of crime radiators to test whether vio-

lent activity in the illicit drug market spreads out over time like a contagion. Finding support for

their thesis at the block level of analysis, they reported that drug activity in a specific block

increased assaultive violence in surrounding blocks the following month.

Despite most research on the drug-violence nexus being conducted in densely populated

metropolitan cities (Coomber, 2015; Goldstein et al., 1989), rural drug markets also exist and

take on differing compositions, consumers, and contextual factors given the unique configuration

of rural communities (Kuhns & Clodfelter, 2009). Using Goldstein’s framework, Victor and

Staton (2020) undertook a seminal study on rural drug markets and found that systemic means

are a significant pathway to violence for women. Given the totality of these findings, there is

little dispute among social scientists that systemic violence is a crucial explanatory element to

drug-related violence (Erikson, 2001).

Although prior studies have advanced the literature on systemic violence, there remains a

gap in knowledge on whether lethal force materializes as an instrument used by individuals in

the drug market for a functional competitive purpose. When systemic competitive measures are

taken by market actors to increase profits, to create barriers to entry, or to defend territory, drug

dealers are not required to abide by the law as are individuals operating in the legitimate market.