The malleable character of brokerage and crime control: a study of policing, security and network entrepreneurialism on Melbourne's waterfront

Controlling crime through networks

“…Discrete networks can also be vastly different in terms of their scope and operating contexts, and ties can (and are) mobilised through a multifarious web of regulatory, contractual, voluntary and informal arrangements (Cherney et al 2006;Dupont 2006a). Nodes are not necessarily bound by shared values or overarching objectives either, and are instead more appropriately characterised as a medley of overlapping (but also potentially competing or conflicting) interests and interdependencies (for example , Castells 2000;Newburn 2001;Crawford et al 2005;Crawford 2006a;Brewer and Grabosky 2014;Brewer 2015). As a consequence of all these characteristics, the formation of connections among nodes and development of distinct patterns of relationships have seen pluralised policing networks unfold in unique and sometimes unexpected ways.…”

“…Using social network analysis (SNA), this body of work undertook the onerous task of mapping the social structure (that is, the extent of connections and the placement of nodes) of localised security networks. Subsequent research by the author (Brewer 2014(Brewer , 2015 has employed similar methods to build on these contributions and further develop understandings of how the diverse connections between nodes 2…”

“…The modelling undertaken of discrete security networks, first by Dupont (2006aDupont ( , 2006b) and then by Brewer (2014Brewer ( , 2015, offers unique insight into how security is being delivered that has not previously been canvassed. Although these studies vary in terms of jurisdiction, size and scope, they both nonetheless feature consistent attributes pertaining to the interdependencies that exist between public and private nodes, the formation of distinct patterns of relational ties connecting nodes, and the emergence of complex structures that govern flows across security networks.…”

“…Studies of security networks to date have modelled control of such flows through a determination of which nodes actively occupy the most central (and, hence, most powerful) positions within a given network's structure. Measures of centrality have 4 Observations made by a maritime union representative and reiterated by other industry stakeholders interviewed for Brewer's (2014Brewer's ( , 2015 research. 5…”

“…One important thread emerging from this scholarship recognises that assessing the nature of these flows involves the consideration of social structures-particularly through its macrostructural properties (Dupont 2004(Dupont , 2006c. These very dimensions have been subject to empirical examination in some recently published work by the author (Brewer 2014(Brewer , 2015, offering fresh insights into how the distinct patterns of connections within security networks shape the ways in which criminogenic conditions are controlled and responded to. This chapter will probe key theoretical and empirical developments and account for how various state and non-state actors shape flows across networks.…”