Crime, Law & Social Change (2006) 45: 227–230

DOI: 10.1007/s10611-006-9021-9 
C Springer 2006

Review of Wages of Crime

Black Markets, Illegal Finance, and the Underworld Economy,

R.T. Naylor, Cornell University Press, 2005

Wages of Crime is a provocative and thoughtful work by a thoughtful and

provocative author, R. T. Naylor, a professor of economics at Canada’s McGill
University. Most (all?) readers will surely agree that this book is provocative.
Whether they agree that it is thoughtful, however, may well depend upon
their political ideology and how sympathetic they might be to bashing the
United States. Naylor’s thesis here is that the so-called “war on terror” being
conducted (principally by the United States) since September 11, 2001 is
little more than a hyped-up cover for a variety of questionable and illegal
actions by U.S. law enforcement. The latter, according to Naylor, are not based
upon any rational-empirical evidence and demonstrated need, but rather upon
myth, hyperbole, confusion, and deliberate disinformation. One thing Naylor
cannot be accused of is mincing his words! Having set himself the challenge
of defending his thesis, it is appropriate for readers to ask how – and just how
well – he accomplishes this task.
To begin, a small note of caution and a disclosure – this reviewer is a life-
long Democrat who voted twice against President Bush, and who is no fan
of the Bush Administration and its policies. That said, one gets an immediate
sense of the book’s tone in the very first sentence of its introduction: “President
George W. Bush,” Naylor writes, “does not believe in the greenhouse effect,
shrugs off acid rain, and cannot see any hole in the ozone layer no matter
how hard he squints” (p. 1). But before I take up the matter of the book’s
tone a bit later, I should note that there are three major assumptions that
Naylor cites and targets for refutation. The first is the assumption that there
are great crime cartels on the world stage; second, that globalization facilitates
these international crime cartels; and third, that the money generated by the
international cartels is a threat to the foundations of the world economic order.
What does the author conclude about these assumptions? In a word, that they
are hogwash! The bulk of the book is then devoted to substantiating this
judgment.
228 BOOK REVIEW

Professor Naylor’s description of the “mafia myth” in Chapter 1 is in keep-

ing with that of a number of others, e.g., Joseph Albini and Dwight Smith. His
delineation of the characteristics that make organized crime indeed organized
crime is excellent. His conclusion that the Racketeer Influenced and Cor-
rupt Organizations Act (RICO) “failed to make much impact on the criminal
marketplace” is, however, certainly not consistent with that of other astute ob-
servers (See, e.g., James B. Jacobs’ Gotham Unbound, NYU Press, 1999) who
believe that RICO was “the most important substantive anti-organized-crime
statute in history” (Jacobs, 1999:131). The discussion in this and the ensuing
five chapters is generally lucid and well-written, if occasionally redundant
and not well-sourced. The redundancy (especially prevalent with respect to
the issue of finding, freezing, and forfeiting the money) is probably due to
the fact that the chapters were apparently written as stand-alone pieces over
a period of time. With respect to sources, this reviewer was sometimes re-
duced to wondering about just how does he know that. This was especially
so in those instances where I checked the notes to determine the source,
only to see that it was Professor Naylor himself in another publication? The
NY Times appears to be a major source. Finally, the book’s index is quite
limited.
It is in the last chapter that Professor Naylor really reaches the zenith of his
criticism of the U.S. and of U.S. policies. Chapter 7 is titled “Satanic Purses,”
one of the countless examples in the book of Naylor’s creative ability to play
with and play on words. He is very adept with turns of phrase and throw-
away lines. There are the “neo-con artists” crafting foreign policy, and “the
First Amendment right to freedom of (selective) religion,” and so on. In truth,
there is much in the chapter with which this reviewer can wholeheartedly
agree. Any follower of the news over the past four years knows that a litany
of mistakes have been made by the United States, wrong-headed policies
pursued, deceptions promulgated, etc., etc. A reasoned, carefully documented,
informed and informative analysis of the war on terror by a reputable scholar
such as Naylor is certainly in order. Unfortunately, that is not what we find
for the most part in this chapter, which often reads more like a polemic than
a scholarly work. Professor Naylor ironically commits some of the same
mistakes of which he accuses the Bush Administration, most especially that
of engaging in hyperbole. He is also seemingly addicted to “cuteness,” as in
the use of catchy words and phrases. The following are just a few examples
of Naylor’s approach:

“To punish the perpetrators and prevent a repetition [of the 9/11 attacks],
the most important response, apart from bombing wedding parties and
eviscerating children in Afghanistan. . ..” (p. 288). Did mistaken bombings
 BOOK REVIEW 229

of this sort occur in Afghanistan? Unfortunately yes! Were they official

policy? Surely Naylor knows they were not!
“If Helen of Troy’s radiant face wrote a major chapter in ancient world
history when it launched a fleet of a thousand ships, Monica Lewinsky’s
puckered lips deserve at least a footnote in more recent annals for helping
to inspire an equally fateful flight of cruise missiles” (p. 295). Highly re-
spected former national security advisor (in four administrations) Richard
Clarke, describes this purported linkage in his book Against All Enemies
(Free Press, 2004), as being grist for the right-wing radio talk mill and part
of the Get Clinton campaign. Whatever one may think of Naylor’s politi-
cal leanings, they certainly would not appear to be right-wing. Clarke says
that the missile attack on suspected al Qaeda headquarters was in fact a
response to “two deadly terrorist attacks” and “an attempt to wipe out al
Qaeda leadership.” Were officials aware that there would probably be an
effort to link this action to the Lewinsky scandal? Yes! Did that influence
the response? Not according to Clarke, who as a former career employee
has no particular reason to apologize for President Clinton’s personal
failings.
“. . .the fight against Islamic religious extremism is led from the White
House by a president who is a Born-again Creationist, who insists that his
cabinet ministers attend Bible class. . . .” (p. 300). Is Bush a born-again
Christian? Yes! Is he a Creationist? I don’t know, nor do we learn here how
Naylor knows that. Does Bush insist that cabinet members attend Bible
class? Not to my knowledge. If the author is alleging that the war on terror
is a religious war, I for one would be prepared to entertain the evidence
pro and con for that allegation. That evidence and that discussion are not
here.
“. . . [Washington] think tanks manned by exspooks unable to find a real day
job. . ..” (p. 304). Partially accurate, but mostly cute! One should beware
of half-truths, and also supposedly serious scholars who try to mimic Jay
Leno and David Letterman.
Given Professor Naylor’s obvious antipathy to the Bush administration,
one might think he would join hands with Bush critics – well, not neces-
sarily! For example, he calls the anti-Bush film maker Michael Moore that
“occasional well-meaning if naı̈ve lefty critic of the Bush administration.”
Finally, that Naylor applies his tar brush quite broadly is evident in this
gratuitous slap at the hundreds, indeed thousands, of honest, hard-working
public servants in the United States: “A senior U.S. Treasury official helpfully
suggested that Somalis could use Western Union instead [for money transfers].
230 BOOK REVIEW

Leaving aside the question of whether the official was lining himself up for a
corporate plum after he left what in the present day United States passes for
public service [italics added]. . ..” (p. 319). Just what are readers to make of
this?
As I indicated at the outset, whether readers appreciate Wages of Crime
or not, and agree with it or not, will depend upon their political ideology
and their views of the United States. Professor Naylor is certainly a critical
thinker who provides much food for thought in this book. Unfortunately for
my taste, the scholarship is too often overwhelmed by an anti-American and
particularly anti-current administration diatribe that I am sure others may find
over the top as well.
JAMES O. FINCKENAUER
Professor of Criminal justice
School of Criminal Justice
Rutgers University
123 Washington Street
Newark, NJ 07102
E-mail: finckena@andromeda.rutgers.edu