Criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality, and neutralization theory

Petter Gottschalk, Robert Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to apply neutralization theory to white‐collar criminals to discuss criminal entrepreneurship.

Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical framework of neutralization techniques is applied to criminal entrepreneurship and white‐collar criminality.

Findings – A legal entrepreneur is a person who operates a new enterprise or venture and assumes some accountability for the inherent risk. Similarly, the criminal entrepreneur's task is to discover and exploit opportunities, defined most simply as situations in which there are a profit to be made in criminal activity.

Research limitations/implications – Examples of criminal entrepreneurship committed by otherwise legal entrepreneurs are commonly labeled as white‐collar criminality. This paper discusses how criminal entrepreneurship by white‐collar criminals can be explained by neutralization theory, as white‐collar criminals tend to apply techniques of neutralization used by offenders to deny the criminality of their actions.

Practical implications – Policing white‐collar criminality should be expanded to understand criminal entrepreneurs when applying neutralization theory to deny crime activities.Social implications – Neutralization theory illustrates how serious white‐collar crime is denied by the offender.

Originality/value – As can be seen by this brief discussion of criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality and corporate and organized crime, there is a need for a concentrated research effort to clarify and explain these conflated conflicts. By discussing them in context this paper has made a contribution to the literature by introducing the concepts of entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial judgment into the debate. Moreover, in discussing neutralization theory, some fresh insights can be gained into the mind of the criminal entrepreneur.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)300-308
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy
Volume5
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Criminality
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurs
Crime
Corporate crime
Theoretical framework
Venture
Inherent risk
Accountability
Profit
Design methodology
Organized crime

Keywords

  • Crime
  • Criminals
  • Entrepreneurialism
  • Entrepreneurs
  • Criminal entrepreneur
  • White‐collar crime
  • Neutralization theory

Cite this

@article{b1848d1602b44b0895ca0c7579aa5f8b,
title = "Criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality, and neutralization theory",
abstract = "Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to apply neutralization theory to white‐collar criminals to discuss criminal entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical framework of neutralization techniques is applied to criminal entrepreneurship and white‐collar criminality.Findings – A legal entrepreneur is a person who operates a new enterprise or venture and assumes some accountability for the inherent risk. Similarly, the criminal entrepreneur's task is to discover and exploit opportunities, defined most simply as situations in which there are a profit to be made in criminal activity.Research limitations/implications – Examples of criminal entrepreneurship committed by otherwise legal entrepreneurs are commonly labeled as white‐collar criminality. This paper discusses how criminal entrepreneurship by white‐collar criminals can be explained by neutralization theory, as white‐collar criminals tend to apply techniques of neutralization used by offenders to deny the criminality of their actions.Practical implications – Policing white‐collar criminality should be expanded to understand criminal entrepreneurs when applying neutralization theory to deny crime activities.Social implications – Neutralization theory illustrates how serious white‐collar crime is denied by the offender.Originality/value – As can be seen by this brief discussion of criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality and corporate and organized crime, there is a need for a concentrated research effort to clarify and explain these conflated conflicts. By discussing them in context this paper has made a contribution to the literature by introducing the concepts of entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial judgment into the debate. Moreover, in discussing neutralization theory, some fresh insights can be gained into the mind of the criminal entrepreneur.",
keywords = "Crime, Criminals, Entrepreneurialism, Entrepreneurs, Criminal entrepreneur, White‐collar crime, Neutralization theory",
author = "Petter Gottschalk and Robert Smith",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1108/17506201111177334",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "300--308",
journal = "Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy",
issn = "1750-6204",
publisher = "Emerald Publishing Limited",
number = "4",

}

Criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality, and neutralization theory. / Gottschalk, Petter; Smith, Robert.

In: Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2011, p. 300-308.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality, and neutralization theory

AU - Gottschalk, Petter

AU - Smith, Robert

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to apply neutralization theory to white‐collar criminals to discuss criminal entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical framework of neutralization techniques is applied to criminal entrepreneurship and white‐collar criminality.Findings – A legal entrepreneur is a person who operates a new enterprise or venture and assumes some accountability for the inherent risk. Similarly, the criminal entrepreneur's task is to discover and exploit opportunities, defined most simply as situations in which there are a profit to be made in criminal activity.Research limitations/implications – Examples of criminal entrepreneurship committed by otherwise legal entrepreneurs are commonly labeled as white‐collar criminality. This paper discusses how criminal entrepreneurship by white‐collar criminals can be explained by neutralization theory, as white‐collar criminals tend to apply techniques of neutralization used by offenders to deny the criminality of their actions.Practical implications – Policing white‐collar criminality should be expanded to understand criminal entrepreneurs when applying neutralization theory to deny crime activities.Social implications – Neutralization theory illustrates how serious white‐collar crime is denied by the offender.Originality/value – As can be seen by this brief discussion of criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality and corporate and organized crime, there is a need for a concentrated research effort to clarify and explain these conflated conflicts. By discussing them in context this paper has made a contribution to the literature by introducing the concepts of entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial judgment into the debate. Moreover, in discussing neutralization theory, some fresh insights can be gained into the mind of the criminal entrepreneur.

AB - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to apply neutralization theory to white‐collar criminals to discuss criminal entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical framework of neutralization techniques is applied to criminal entrepreneurship and white‐collar criminality.Findings – A legal entrepreneur is a person who operates a new enterprise or venture and assumes some accountability for the inherent risk. Similarly, the criminal entrepreneur's task is to discover and exploit opportunities, defined most simply as situations in which there are a profit to be made in criminal activity.Research limitations/implications – Examples of criminal entrepreneurship committed by otherwise legal entrepreneurs are commonly labeled as white‐collar criminality. This paper discusses how criminal entrepreneurship by white‐collar criminals can be explained by neutralization theory, as white‐collar criminals tend to apply techniques of neutralization used by offenders to deny the criminality of their actions.Practical implications – Policing white‐collar criminality should be expanded to understand criminal entrepreneurs when applying neutralization theory to deny crime activities.Social implications – Neutralization theory illustrates how serious white‐collar crime is denied by the offender.Originality/value – As can be seen by this brief discussion of criminal entrepreneurship, white‐collar criminality and corporate and organized crime, there is a need for a concentrated research effort to clarify and explain these conflated conflicts. By discussing them in context this paper has made a contribution to the literature by introducing the concepts of entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial judgment into the debate. Moreover, in discussing neutralization theory, some fresh insights can be gained into the mind of the criminal entrepreneur.

KW - Crime

KW - Criminals

KW - Entrepreneurialism

KW - Entrepreneurs

KW - Criminal entrepreneur

KW - White‐collar crime

KW - Neutralization theory

U2 - 10.1108/17506201111177334

DO - 10.1108/17506201111177334

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 300

EP - 308

JO - Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy

JF - Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy

SN - 1750-6204

IS - 4

ER -