Bad medicine: Why different systems of organized crime demand different solutions

International drug trafficking dominates the conversation on organized crime, but equally common and serious are urban systems of organized crime—criminal groups focused not on exports or transshipment, but on dominating local markets, neighborhoods, and politics. When policymakers do pay attention to this problem, they consistently make the same mistake—believing there are best practices. But systems of organized crime are not all alike. There is no one blueprint or general solution, and so following the latest fad is unlikely to deliver the desired result. Instead of trying to copy the quasi-mythological success of a Giuliani or Bukele, policymakers need to understand what kind of organized crime problem they have, what capabilities their city possesses, and what tools are appropriate to the circumstances. This paper looks in-depth at how organized crime is organized in three cities: Chicago, Medellín, and San Salvador. It also considers New York, Bogotá, and Port-au-Prince. I argue that the primary driver of their organization and incentives is their source of criminal revenues. A second major driver of behavior is the degree of criminal political organization, which broadly-speaking takes three forms: atomized individuals, fragmented groups, and competing confederations. These forms are not just the product of their revenues, but are also the result of decades of competition with the state and one another. What policy tools will work hinges on this diagnosis. I look at the evidence for a range of standard policies—from crackdowns to street outreach—and explain why we can expect them to have wildly different impacts depending on the context.