Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-r8w4l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-07T22:03:29.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Criminal fragmentation in Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2025

Jane Esberg*
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mexico's war on drugs is increasingly characterized by small, local groups rather than large cartels. This research note introduces new data developed from a narcoblog—a citizen journalism website—on more than 450 criminal organizations operating in Mexico between 2009 and 2020. I use the data to test prominent theories of fragmentation, providing suggestive evidence that drug war policies contributed to a more complex conflict: kingpin removals were correlated with the emergence of smaller groups; profit opportunities (in this case, fuel theft) then attracted these organizations to new territories. This research contributes to our understanding of criminal control and informs debates over violence reduction policies.

Type
Research Note
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of EPS Academic Ltd

In 2009, Mexican marines killed a leader of the powerful Beltrán Leyva Organization (BLO). Heralded at the time as a major success in the war on drugs, one military officer later described its effects: “nobody accepted the other's leadership and they started betraying and fighting each other” (International Crisis Group, 2020). The remnants of the BLO, like Los Rojos and Los Guerreros Unidos, continue to vie for territory.

Such small organizations play a growing role in Mexico's drug-related violence (Garzón Vergara, Reference Garzón Vergara, Bagley, Rosen and Kassab2015; Trejo and Ley, Reference Trejo and Ley2020). To better understand the conflict, I introduce new data on 473 groups operating in Mexico between 2009 and 2020 derived from a citizen journalism website (narcoblog). This research furthers efforts to map cartel presence over time, by focusing on smaller groups and drawing on a new information source (Coscia and Rios, Reference Coscia and Rios2012; Osorio and Beltran, Reference Osorio and Beltran2020; Signoret et al., Reference Signoret, Alcocer, Farfán-Méndez and Sobrino2020; Sobrino, Reference Sobrino2020).

I use the data to test prominent theories of criminal fragmentation: leadership decapitation and profit opportunities (here, fuel theft) (Garzón Vergara, Reference Garzón Vergara, Bagley, Rosen and Kassab2015; Atuesta and Pérez-Dávila, Reference Atuesta and Pérez-Dávila2018). Critics of Mexico's “kingpin strategy” argue that removing cartel leadership spurs territorial contestation; promotes splintering; and encourages decentralization (Calderón et al., Reference Calderón, Robles, Díaz-Cayeros and Magaloni2015; Garzón Vergara, Reference Garzón Vergara, Bagley, Rosen and Kassab2015; Farfán-Méndez, Reference Farfán-Méndez2019; Castillo et al., Reference Castillo, Mejía and Restrepo2020). Once created, these organizations must sustain themselves. A related literature demonstrates that increased profit opportunities attract groups to new territories (Dube et al., Reference Dube, García-Ponce and Thom2016; Farfán-Méndez, Reference Farfán-Méndez2016; Sobrino, Reference Sobrino2020; Alcocer, Reference Alcocer2022; Franco-Vivanco et al., Reference Franco-Vivanco, Martinez-Alvarez and Martínez2023). I show that both kingpin removals and profit opportunities are associated with more criminal groups in affected regions, supporting previous literature. However, kingpin removals correlate with the emergence of new organizations, while profit opportunities attract existing ones. This provides evidence of how the war on drugs contributed to a more complex conflict.

Criminal groups around the world increasingly act as franchised networks rather than vertical hierarchies (Garzón Vergara, Reference Garzón Vergara2012, Reference Garzón Vergara, Bagley, Rosen and Kassab2015; Farfán-Méndez, Reference Farfán-Méndez2019). This research contributes to literature on criminal control, as well as work on leadership decapitation and profit opportunities as conflict drivers (Angrist and Kugler, Reference Angrist and Kugler2008; Bazzi and Blattman, Reference Bazzi and Blattman2014; Calderón et al., Reference Calderón, Robles, Díaz-Cayeros and Magaloni2015; Osorio, Reference Osorio2015; Phillips, Reference Phillips2015; Dube et al., Reference Dube, García-Ponce and Thom2016; Trejo and Ley, Reference Trejo and Ley2018; Blair et al., Reference Blair, Christensen and Rudkin2021; Magaloni et al., Reference Magaloni, Robles, Matanock, Diaz-Cayeros and Romero2020; Estancona, Reference Estancona2021; Blair et al., Reference Blair, Horowitz and Potter2022). More broadly, findings contribute to policy and academic debates on strategies to address criminal violence (Garzón Vergara, Reference Garzón Vergara2012; Lessing, Reference Lessing2021).

1. Mapping criminal groups

Mexico's criminal conflict has grown increasingly violent and complex over the past few decades (Trejo and Ley, Reference Trejo and Ley2018, Reference Trejo and Ley2020). I refer to the growing number of criminal groups as “criminal fragmentation,” though it reflects both the territorial expansion of existing organizations and the emergence of new ones. I define criminal groups as at least loosely organized, semi-independent, non-state collectives that engage in illicit activities. Such groups differ considerably. Cartels may be hierarchical or adopt a “wheel network” (Farfán-Méndez, Reference Farfán-Méndez2019). Smaller groups may form a spoke of this wheel or operate independently. Some extend nationwide, while others are local. They may participate in the international drug trade or focus on extortion (Garzón Vergara, Reference Garzón Vergara, Bagley, Rosen and Kassab2015). While groups are sometimes entangled with state structures, here I focus on non-state criminal groups (Snyder and Durán Martínez, Reference Snyder and Durán Martínez2009; Barnes, Reference Barnes2017; Yashar, Reference Yashar2018; Trejo and Ley, Reference Trejo and Ley2020).

I develop original data on criminal organizations by hand-coding a narcoblog, an anonymous citizen journalism website focused on Mexico's drug war. Narcoblogs act as both press aggregators and alternative news sources, offering several benefits. By filtering relevant press, one can be realistically hand-coded. This is useful for identifying criminal actors, especially when names are common in other contexts (e.g., “the Taliban”). Narcoblogs also publish citizen reports, like crime scene photos or narco-banners. Such content is informative, but may go unreported: in 2011 some outlets stopped publishing criminal “propaganda” (Acuerdo para la Cobertura Informativa de la Violencia, 2011). Given anonymity, narcoblogs reduce concerns about underreporting due to violence against journalists (Larreguy et al., Reference Larreguy, Lucas, Marshall and Riaz2020; Dorff et al., Reference Dorff, Henry and Ley2022).

I use the narcoblog Borderland Beat, the longest-running and most consistently active of popular blogs. In addition to coverage, this helps differentiate increased posting from a rise in groups. It also prides itself on verification of information.Footnote 1 Coverage begins in 2009 and ends in October 2020, when a lawsuit by a convicted criminal leader temporarily shuttered the site. Founded by editor “‘Buggs,”Footnote 2 Borderland relies on anonymous volunteer contributors in the United States and Mexico to write, translate, and validate information (Marentes, Reference Marentes2019). Content primarily comes from the press, supplemented with user forums, social media, and submitted emails (Appendix A).

To code criminal groups, I focus on organizations with a unique name. Theoretically, such groups operate at least semi-independently; empirically, this ensures groups can be tracked over time and provides clear guidelines for inclusion. For each post, I identify organizations and their municipalities of operation. I supplement with press information, including whether groups operate under multiple names and their relationships to other organizations (Appendix A).

I identify 473 groups operating between June 2009 and October 2020. Following Sobrino (Reference Sobrino2020), I define nine as major cartels, like the Sinaloa Cartel and BLO. Such groups differ in structure and methods, but represent the most dominant and internationally active organizations in my study period (Durán-Martínez, Reference Durán-Martínez2015, Reference Durán-Martínez2017; Farfán-Méndez, Reference Farfán-Méndez2019; Congressional Research Service, 2022). Twenty-three groups cannot be tied to a municipality, dropping from the data (see Appendix A for details).

Other groups I split into three categories. Cells are affiliates of larger cartels, often local wings or enforcers. Tracking them offers insight into the adoption of more horizontal leadership structures through decentralization (Garzón Vergara, Reference Garzón Vergara, Bagley, Rosen and Kassab2015; Farfán-Méndez, Reference Farfán-Méndez2019). By design cells operate with some independence. For example, La Linea is an enforcer unit for the Juarez Cartel, but grew in power as the larger cartel weakened. Cells also contribute to violence, including by fighting one another: La Gente Nueva and Los Emes warred despite being Sinaloa affiliates (Corcoran, Reference Corcoran2011; Calderón et al., Reference Calderón, Robles, Díaz-Cayeros and Magaloni2015). I identify 177 cells (see Appendix A for more on coding decisions).

Ninety-three groups are splinters that broke with their former compatriots. Unlike cells, they do not operate under a higher authority. They may emerge from cartel breakdown, as with BLO's disintegration. Some form after wars of succession. Cells may become splinters: in Tijuana, the dominant Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) went to war with its former unit Los Cabos (La guerra interna del CJNG, 2019). I differentiate cells from splinters based on press descriptions, with the caveat that internal group dynamics are difficult to observe. If a group was a cell that split, I code it as a splinter.

Another 171 have no known past or present affiliation to larger organizations. I call these “unaffiliated groups,” though this is a category of exclusion: we may simply lack information. Many are local, like the Mexico City-based Los Tóxicos robbery gang. Some become significant regional players. The Santa Rosa de Lima Cartel, dedicated to fuel theft, in some areas challenged the CJNG. Despite flaws, mapping unaffiliated groups offers insight into organizations that lack large cartels’ resources.

One limitation is that categories are fixed, due to the difficulty of documenting group dynamics. Cells may begin as unaffiliated, for example, but identifying if and when this changes is challenging. Here I combine cells, splinters, and unaffiliated organizations under the category minor groups. Theoretically, they closely resemble what Garzón Vergara (Reference Garzón Vergara, Bagley, Rosen and Kassab2015) call “predatory micro-networks” rather than hierarchical cartels. Empirically, grouping them skirts the challenge of differentiation. Appendix B shows results by subtype and with alternative coding rules.

Among minor cartels, I differentiate between when new organizations emerge and existing organizations expand.Footnote 3 I define a group as emerging when it first appears in the narcoblog dataset (excluding 2009, when all groups are “new”). An organization expands by reaching a new municipality after its first year operating. While imperfect, these proxies provide suggestive evidence for mechanisms underlying fragmentation. Figure 1 shows criminal group presence in 2010 and 2019, the first and last full years of data (to make the descriptive comparison cleaner). Maps demonstrate an increase in criminal groups and the spread of their territory.

Figure 1. Criminal Groups, 2010 and 2019. Criminal groups by year in 2010 and 2019, the first and last full years of data (the full data cover mid-2009 to October 2020).

Data contribute to literature mapping Mexico's criminal organizations (Appendix A). Recent projects use machine learning and news corpuses to track cartels, both large (Coscia and Rios, Reference Coscia and Rios2012; Sobrino, Reference Sobrino2020) and small (Osorio and Beltran, Reference Osorio and Beltran2020). Hand-coding identifies more groups—about three times the number in Osorio and Beltran (Reference Osorio and Beltran2020)—but does not match breadth of coverage.Footnote 4 Other datasets use press or government sources, though with a more limited timeframe (Lantia Intelligence, 2022; BACRIM, 2022; Aguilar et al., Reference Aguilar, Guazo, Mezal and Garnica2024). I extend this work by focusing on tracking small groups and drawing on a new source.

Like press sources generally, the data likely bias toward groups that seek territorial control and use violence, and toward municipalities with stronger media presence (Anders, Reference Anders2020). Narcoblogs also do not follow standard reporting practices. Most concerning, some are denounced as mouthpieces for state agents or criminal groups. Using reputable Borderland Beat reduces these concerns (International Crisis Group, 2024). More broadly, however, low-quality information may inflate group counts.Footnote 5 Since there is no ground-truth data, Appendix B benchmarks my data against other sources, including existing datasets (Osorio and Beltran, Reference Osorio and Beltran2020; Sobrino, Reference Sobrino2020), press searches, a Spanish-language narcoblog, and leaked military intelligence (Aguilar et al., Reference Aguilar, Guazo, Mezal and Garnica2024). My results increase confidence that the data are not significantly biased or low quality.Footnote 6

2. Understanding fragmentation

What drives fragmentation? I provide evidence that the kingpin strategy contributed to the devolution of large cartels and that, in turn, profit opportunities compelled groups to seek resources in new areas (Castillo and Kronick, Reference Castillo and Kronick2020; Trejo and Ley, Reference Trejo and Ley2020; Alcocer, Reference Alcocer2022). While in line with past literature, the narcoblog dataset allows testing how such mechanisms influence fragmentation.

2.1 The kingpin strategy

To explore leadership decapitation and criminal fragmentation, I combine US sanctions lists with the narcoblog data, aggregated to the municipality level. While sanctions lists capture groups with international presence—meaning they are far from complete—they include the highest-profile kingpins. My main specifications use two-way fixed effects to estimate change in criminal groups following kingpin removals, controlling for state-specific time trends; whether a municipality has a conservative mayor (Magar, Reference Magar2018); and log hectares of poppy and marijuana seized, a proxy for drug presence (Ch, Reference Ch2023). A municipality is “treated” if a group operated there in the year of or year prior to a kingpin removal. Municipalities remain “treated” for three years (see Appendix A for details).

The number of criminal groups increases in affected territories following kingpin removals (Table 1; Figure 2, left panel). For minor groups this is due to both emergence and expansion (Figure 2, right panel). Appendix A shows these results are primarily due to increased splinters and cells, suggesting decentralization of large cartels. The rise in major cartels points to intergroup competition after a power vacuum.Footnote 7 Appendix B presents robustness checks, including with alternate independent variables and estimators. Main results largely hold.

Table 1. Kingpin removals and criminal groups

Robust SEs clustered by municipality. Controls for mayoral party, poppy eradication, and marijuana eradication, plus state-year linear time trends.

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, $^ + {\rm p}< 0.01$.

Figure 2. Kingpin removals and criminal groups. Event study plots showing major and minor groups (left) and the emergence or expansion of minor groups (right). The independent variable is the number of years to or from a kingpin capture.

While following a difference-in-differences design, these results are not causal: successful kingpin removals may reflect weakened cartels. Indeed, major groups increase before attacks. However, qualitative evidence suggests some relationship between the kingpin strategy and fragmentation. Take the state of Sonora, once Sinaloa Cartel territory. Leader El Chapo's arrest and extradition led to a succession conflict between his lieutenant and his sons, backed by cells Los Cazadores and Los Salazar. In the power vacuum, the CJNG entered, as did the Caborca Cartel, via its armed wing La Barredora 24/7 (Dittmar, Reference Dittmar2022).

2.2 Fuel theft and fragmentation

Increased competition and drug interdiction encourage criminal groups to diversify (Herrera and Martinez-Alvarez, Reference Herrera and Martinez-Alvarez2022). One profitable alternative to drugs is fuel theft (huachicoleo), the stealing of gas to sell at below-market rates (often by tapping pipelines). Huachicoleo increased after Mexico began removing fuel subsidies in 2010, following losses during the 2008 financial crisis. Full deregulation occurred in 2017, with prices jumping as much as 20 percent overnight (Appendix A) (Planta and Jordan, Reference Planta and Jordan2013; Un 20 de aumento a cualquiera le pega, 2017). Cartels thus had “even more incentive to undercut the prices of the legal market” (Jones and Sullivan, Reference Jones and Sullivan2019, p. 7). Exploiting plausibly exogenous pipeline placement, I use a two-way fixed effects design to measure the relationship between the value of territory and armed group presence.Footnote 8 As a proxy for value, my main independent variable interacts domestic gas prices (in inflation-adjusted pesos, divided by ten for visualization) and logged pipeline length by municipality (in km).

Table 2 suggests that areas with more pipeline attracted more criminal groups as gas prices rose. This is driven mostly by expansion—only unaffiliated groups appear somewhat more likely to emerge (Appendix A). Findings point to profit opportunities encouraging groups to expand their territories, in line with work using other data sources (Alcocer, Reference Alcocer2022; Franco-Vivanco et al., Reference Franco-Vivanco, Martinez-Alvarez and Martínez2023). Robustness checks, including alternative independent variables, are given in Appendix B.

Table 2. Gas pipelines and criminal groups

Robust SEs clustered by municipality. Controls for mayoral party, poppy eradication, and marijuana eradication, plus state-year linear time trends.

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, $^ + {\rm p}< 0.01$.

Qualitative evidence illuminates how the decentralization and splintering of large cartels contributed to territorial expansion. The dominant Gulf Cartel and Zetas moved into fuel theft in 2010, as subsidies decreased. Following leadership removals, their splinters—like Sangre Nueva Zeta and Grupo Sombra—increasingly engaged in huachicoleo.

3. Conclusion

Most criminal groups in Mexico are not large, vertically-integrated cartels, but rather small—and often local—outfits. For example, fighting between the powerful CJNG and a collection of regional rivals caused mass displacement in western Mexico (Desplazamiento de familias de Tierra Caliente, 2023). To further our understanding of the criminal conflict, this research note introduces new data that centers small groups and derives from a unique source, the narcoblog.

I apply the data to theories of criminal fragmentation. The failure of the kingpin strategy to decrease violence is often attributed to its role in breaking up cartels (Calderón et al., Reference Calderón, Robles, Díaz-Cayeros and Magaloni2015; Garzón Vergara, Reference Garzón Vergara, Bagley, Rosen and Kassab2015; Farfán-Méndez, Reference Farfán-Méndez2019; Castillo et al., Reference Castillo, Mejía and Restrepo2020). New groups must then sustain themselves, even as competition increases (Garzón Vergara, Reference Garzón Vergara, Bagley, Rosen and Kassab2015; Atuesta and Pérez-Dávila, Reference Atuesta and Pérez-Dávila2018). I find kingpin removals are associated with more intergroup competition, splintering, and decentralization. Increasing territorial value mostly attracts existing groups.

My results highlight how traditional drug war strategies, like leadership removal and interdiction, contributed to the atomization of criminal conflict. This is not unique to Mexico: the decentralization and disintegration of larger criminal groups has happened in states like Colombia and Haiti. Understanding when and why these smaller organizations emerge or expand can thus inform debates about addressing criminal conflict.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2025.4.

To obtain replication material for this article, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WDS8HB.

Acknowledgments

I thank Rafael Ch Duran, Ulrich Eberle, Falko Ernst, Chelsea Estancona, Tarek Ghani, Guy Grossman, Jacob Shapiro, Anouk Rigterink, Santiago Tobón, and participants at the 2020 Economics of Conflict Conference, the 2022 Empirical Studies of Conflict Conference, the Penn Development Research Initiative seminar series, and the 2023 Empirical Studies of Conflict in Latin America Conference for providing comments on previous versions. Anneka Bergen, Emily Schultis, and Beatriz Teles provided excellent research assistance.

Footnotes

1 See BorderlandBeat.com, “BB Info.”

2 Later revealed as Alex Marentes, retired police officer (Marentes, Reference Marentes2019).

3 All major cartels emerged prior to 2009.

4 This makes my data more likely to miss year-on-year presence of groups. To partially account for this, if a group operates in a municipality in non-consecutive years up to three years apart, I assume it operated in the intervening period. Results hold using the non-backfilled data (Appendix B).

5 Results hold using measures less prone to bias, including dropping rarely mentioned groups and using a binary measure of group presence (Appendix B).

6 I show robustness to dropping groups I could not confirm with other sources in Appendix B.

7 Given the definition of affected municipalities, this increase is partially mechanical in year 0.

8 Information on pipeline infrastructure is available through the Mexican government (de Energía de Mexico, 2018) and aligns with the duct maps produced by Carto Crítica (2017). I exclude ducts built after the 2006 for endogeneity concerns, in case violence influences construction. Results hold when using 2020 pipeline length (Appendix B).

References

Aguilar, S, Guazo, D, Mezal, S and Garnica, MA (2024) México, el país de los cárteles. El Universal. https://interactivos.eluniversal.com.mx/2023/mapa-crimen-organizado/.Google Scholar
Alcocer, M (2022) Drug wars, organized crime expansion, and state capture: evidence from Mexico. Working Paper. https://www.marco-alcocer.com/papers/Alcocer-JMP.pdf.Google Scholar
Anders, T (2020) Territorial control in civil wars: theory and measurement using machine learning. Journal of Peace Research 57, 701714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, JD and Kugler, AD (2008) Rural windfall or a new resource curse? Coca, income, and civil conflict in Colombia. The Review of Economics and Statistics 90, 191215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atuesta, LH and Pérez-Dávila, YS (2018) Fragmentation and cooperation: the evolution of organized crime in Mexico. Trends in Organized Crime 21, 235261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, N (2017) Criminal politics: an integrated approach to the study of organized crime, politics, and violence. Perspectives on Politics 15, 967987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzi, S and Blattman, C (2014) Economic shocks and conflict: evidence from commodity prices. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 6, 138.Google Scholar
Blair, CW, Horowitz, MC and Potter, PB (2022) Leadership targeting and militant alliance breakdown. The Journal of Politics 84, 923943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, G, Christensen, D and Rudkin, A (2021) Do commodity price shocks cause armed conflict? A meta-analysis of natural experiments. American Political Science Review 115, 709716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calderón, G, Robles, G, Díaz-Cayeros, A and Magaloni, B (2015) The beheading of criminal organizations and the dynamics of violence in Mexico. Journal of Conflict Resolution 59, 14551485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carto Crítica (2017) Ductos, por donde circulan los hidrocarburos en México? July 25. https://cartocritica.org.mx/2017/ductos/.Google Scholar
Castillo, JC and Kronick, D (2020) The logic of violence in drug war. American Political Science Review 114, 874887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castillo, JC, Mejía, D and Restrepo, P (2020) Scarcity without Leviathan: the violent effects of cocaine supply shortages in the Mexican drug war. Review of Economics and Statistics 102, 269286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ch, R (2023) Going local: how reelection breaks the national pressure of local governments to fight organized crime in Mexico. https://www.dropbox.com/s/3npm8oohqvw0hg2/1.%20Ch%2C%20Rafael%20(2022).%20Going%20Local%2C%20JMP.pdf?e=1&dl=0.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service (2022) Mexico: Organized crime and drug trafficking organizations. Technical Report. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41576.Google Scholar
Corcoran, P (2011) Factions of Sinaloa Cartel Battle in Durango. InSight Crime. https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/factions-of-sinaloa-cartel-battle-in-durango/.Google Scholar
Coscia, M and Rios, V (2012) How and where do criminals operate? Using Google to track Mexican drug trafficking organizations. CID Research Fellow and Graduate Student Working Paper Series. https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37366546/.Google Scholar
Dittmar, V (2022) The three criminal fronts sparking violence in sonora, Mexico. InSight Crime. https://insightcrime.org/news/three-criminal-fronts-behind-violence-sonora-mexico/.Google Scholar
Dorff, C, Henry, C and Ley, S (2022) Does violence against journalists deter detailed reporting? Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Conflict Resolution 67, 12181247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dube, O, García-Ponce, O and Thom, K (2016) From maize to haze: agricultural shocks and the growth of the Mexican drug sector. Journal of the European Economic Association 14, 11811224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durán-Martínez, A (2015) To kill and tell? State power, criminal competition, and drug violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution 59, 13771402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durán-Martínez, A (2017) The Politics of Drug Violence: Criminals, Cops and Politicians in Colombia and Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Estancona, CL (2021) Rebel primary commodity markets, price shocks, and supplier victimization. International Studies Quarterly 65, 11111123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farfán-Méndez, C (2016) Beyond Cartels and Kingpins: A Theory on Behavioral Patterns of Drug Trafficking Organizations (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Farfán-Méndez, C (2019) The structure of drug trafficking organizations and money laundering practices: a risk appetite hypothesis. Journal of Illicit Economies and Development 1, 294311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco-Vivanco, E, Martinez-Alvarez, CB and Martínez, IF (2023) Oil theft and violence in Mexico. Journal of Politics in Latin America 15, 217236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzón Vergara, JC (2012) La rebelión de las redes criminales: el crimen organizado en américa latina y las fuerzas que lo modifican. Obtenido de Wilson Center: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Garzon.Rebellion.ESP_.pdf.Google Scholar
Garzón Vergara, JC (2015) From drug cartels to predatory micro networks: the “new” face of organized crime in Latin America. In Bagley, BM, Rosen, JD and Kassab, HS (eds), Reconceptualizing Security in the Americas in the Twenty-First Century. Lanham: Lexington Books, pp. 117131.Google Scholar
Herrera, JS and Martinez-Alvarez, CB (2022) Diversifying violence: mining, export-agriculture, and criminal governance in Mexico. World Development 151, 105769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Crisis Group (2020) Mexico's everyday war: Guerrero and the trials of peace. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/mexico/80-mexicos-everyday-war-guerrero-and-trials-peace.Google Scholar
International Crisis Group (2024) Fear, lies and lucre: How criminal groups weaponise social media in Mexico. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/mexico/039-fear-lies-and-lucre-how-criminal-groups-weaponise-social-media-mexico.Google Scholar
Jones, NP and Sullivan, JP (2019) Huachicoleros: criminal cartels, fuel theft, and violence in Mexico. Journal of Strategic Security 12, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La guerra interna del CJNG (2019) Semanario Zeta. https://zetatijuana.com/2019/08/la-guerra-interna-del-cjng/.Google Scholar
Larreguy, H, Lucas, C, Marshall, J and Riaz, Z (2020) Don't read all about it: Drug trafficking organizations and media reporting of violence in Mexico. Working Paper. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jmarshall/files/cartel_pressure_v6_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Lessing, B (2021) Conceptualizing criminal governance. Perspectives on Politics 19, 854873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magaloni, B, Robles, G, Matanock, AM, Diaz-Cayeros, A and Romero, V (2020) Living in fear: the dynamics of extortion in Mexico's drug war. Comparative Political Studies 53, 11241174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magar, E (2018) Recent Mexican election vote returns repository. https://github.com/emagar/elecReturns.Google Scholar
Marentes, A (2019) Borderland Beat. Lulu.com.Google Scholar
Osorio, J (2015) The contagion of drug violence: spatiotemporal dynamics of the Mexican war on drugs. Journal of Conflict Resolution 59, 14031432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osorio, J and Beltran, A (2020) Enhancing the detection of criminal organizations in Mexico using ML and NLP. International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, BJ (2015) How does leadership decapitation affect violence? The case of drug trafficking organizations in Mexico. Journal of Politics 77, 324336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planta, MD and Jordan, A (2013) Getting prices right: Addressing Mexico's history of fuel subsidies. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Third Quarter: 10–13. https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/documents/research/swe/2013/swe1303d.pdf.Google Scholar
Secretaría de Energía de Mexico (2018) Infraestructura de gas natural en México. https://www.gob.mx/sener/es/articulos/infraestructura-de-gas-natural-en-mexico.Google Scholar
Signoret, P, Alcocer, M, Farfán-Méndez, C and Sobrino, F (2020) Mapping criminal organizations.Google Scholar
Snyder, R and Durán Martínez, A (2009) Drugs, violence, and state-sponsored protection rackets in Mexico and Colombia. Colombia Internacional 70, 6191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobrino, F (2020) Mexican cartel wars: Fighting for the U.S. opioid market. Working Paper. https://www.fersobrino.com/publication/thecartelwars/.Google Scholar
Trejo, G and Ley, S (2018) Why did drug cartels go to war in Mexico? Subnational party alternation, the breakdown of criminal protection, and the onset of large-scale violence. Comparative Political Studies 51, 900937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trejo, G and Ley, S (2020) Votes, Drugs, and Violence: The Political Logic of Criminal Wars in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yashar, DJ (2018) Homicidal Ecologies: Illicit Economies and Complicit States in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Criminal Groups, 2010 and 2019. Criminal groups by year in 2010 and 2019, the first and last full years of data (the full data cover mid-2009 to October 2020).

Figure 1

Table 1. Kingpin removals and criminal groups

Figure 2

Figure 2. Kingpin removals and criminal groups. Event study plots showing major and minor groups (left) and the emergence or expansion of minor groups (right). The independent variable is the number of years to or from a kingpin capture.

Figure 3

Table 2. Gas pipelines and criminal groups

Supplementary material: File

Esberg supplementary material

Esberg supplementary material
Download Esberg supplementary material(File)
File 436.5 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Esberg Dataset

Link