Book Review _The Logic of Collective Action_ by Mancur Olson
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
San Francisco State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
700
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by BrigadierTankFrog25
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reviewed by Sydney Bliss
Abstract
In this book review I will present an in-depth summary and assessment of the 1965 book “The Logic of Collective Action” by Mancur Olson. This book is an examination of the dynamics of collective action and the challenges faced by groups in pursuing their common interests.
Key Concepts
Collective Good:
Anything that the entire group gets access to. No one can be excluded
from a collective good. An example of a collective good would be city streets paid for by taxes. Coercion:
A mandatory commitment to the group. Can be financial or about time and effort. Examples of coercion include union dues, taxes, and professional organization membership fees.
Free Rider:
Benefiting from a collective good without having incurred the costs of participating in its production. An example of a free rider would be someone that benefits from a union but does not pay the union membership. 1
Book Summary
The Logic of Collective Action, written by Mancur Olson, is a seminal work that examines the dynamics of collective action and the challenges faced by groups in pursuing their common interests. Published in 1965, this book continues to provide a framework for understanding how individuals and groups mobilize to achieve their goals. In this book review, I will explore Olson's key arguments and examine his theory of group behavior. The Logic of Collective Action presents a comprehensive analysis of how self-
interested individuals in large groups are hindered in pursuing collective interests in part
due to the problem of free-riding. Olson argues that while individuals have an incentive to benefit from the collective efforts of others without contributing themselves, this behavior undermines the success of collective action. The idea of a collective good is included in the idea of the free rider as well because all will benefit, without having to contribute. Olson states, “The common or collective benefits provided by governments are usually called public goods by economists, and the concept of public goods is one of the oldest and most important ideas in the study of public finance. A common, collective, or public good is here defined as any good such that, if any person X in a group X1…X2...Xn consumes it, it cannot feasibly be withheld from the others in that group.” (Olson, 1965, p. 14)
Olson also explores the role of group size in collective action. He states, “In primitive societies small primary groups prevailed because they were best suited (or at least sufficient) to perform certain functions for the people of these societies; in modern societies, by contract, large associations are capable of performing (or are better able to
2
perform) certain useful functions for the people of these societies. (Olson,1965, p.19-20)
As groups grow larger, the costs of organization and coordination increase, making it more difficult to work towards a goal. Larger groups face greater challenges in organizing and monitoring member contributions, leading to a higher likelihood of free-
riding behavior. Olson argues that small, cohesive groups are more effective in achieving their goals due to the strong connections among the members.
Coercion is another way that Olson explains to force collective action. If individuals are made to participate financially or with time and effort the group will typically do better in achieving the goals, they set. “Philanthropic contributions are not even a significant source of revenue for most countries. Taxes, compulsory payments by definition, are needed. Indeed, as the old saying indicates, their necessity is as certain as death itself…. The reason the state cannot survive on voluntary dues or payments, but must rely on taxation, is that the most fundamental services a nation-
state provides are, in one important respect, like the higher price in a competitive market: they must be available to everyone if they are available to anyone.” (Olson, 1965, p. 13-14)
Olson states his theory in the second page of his book. “If the members of a large group rationally seek to maximize their personal welfare, they will not act to advance their common or group objectives unless there is coercion to force them to do so, or unless some separate incentive, distinct from the achievement of the common or group interest, is offered to the members of the group individually on the condition that they help bear the costs or burdens involved in the achievement of the group objectives.” (Olson, 1965, p.2) This theory is examined throughout the book using 3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
different lenses and examples. The theory is tested by looking at labor unions and pressure groups, and through the lens of Marxian theory. Olson writes in a compelling and trustworthy tone. Assessment
There is much of Olson’s theory that I agree with and there are aspects that I believe are more complicated and need more nuance. The understanding of group theory is important in understanding how to make change and the difficult task of organizing people and driving action is one thing that can be agreed upon by all. Olson’s theory has withstood the test of time and is still a major theory in the realm of economics, political science, and public administration. One aspect of Olson’s theory that I find very interesting is the idea of the ‘free rider’. The free rider idea according to Olson is, “Even if the member of the large group were to neglect his own interests entirely, he still would not rationally contribute toward the provision of any collective good or public service since his own contribution would not be perceptible. (Olson, 1965, p.64) The idea that members of the group will only contribute if there is coercion or there is personal incentive makes a lot of sense. Relating this back to my own experience in public service. I declined membership to a union, because I could not afford to pay the dues and knew that I was still going to benefit from their actions. I was a free rider during that time and was not involved in anything that the union worked toward, but still benefited from the collective good that they provided. More recently I have joined my work union and taken a more active role in the group. I have attended meetings and plan to join the group at the city council to support the goal of increasing wages for everyone working in my job classification. 4
After reading about different group theories some different ideas came to mind about the concept of the free rider and people only being motivated by personal incentive. When the concept of large groups being ineffective because everyone is looking for a personal incentive, I believe there is more reflection needed. Protests, rallies and social movements can get large groups working together and pushing action.
Also, when natural disasters occur, large groups often come together and achieve great
things. (Gen & Wright, 2020, p. 28-29) “Coalition building involves bringing together individuals, groups, and organizations with mutual interests, to amplify their influence.” (Gen & Wright, 2020, p.26) In this model of group theory people are engaging and acting together to achieve a goal, but there is not an individual incentive. The bonds are formed because of a shared interest and sense of comradery. While Olson acknowledges the existence of non-material incentives, his emphasis on self-interest remains a central aspect of his theory. It is important to consider a broader range of factors that can influence collective action.
Another take on groups and their effectiveness states “Groups often have advantages over individuals (and larger groups over smaller groups) because of the availability of more talents and ideas. Groups often outperform individuals at decision-
making and problem-solving tasks. Yet larger groups can often suffer problems related to unwieldiness and diffusion of responsibility.” (Rainey, Fernandez, Malatesta, 2021, p. 293) This understanding, although it does not clarify what they mean by the size of the group, is an interesting perspective when thinking about what groups can accomplish that individuals cannot. In my opinion Olsen has a very solid argument and explains it in a clear concise 5
way. Although I believe that I could be persuaded with another compelling idea, I did enjoy the theory and found it interesting to be able to apply some of the ideas into my work life and think about the various groups that I am a member of. 6
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
References
Gen, S. & Wright, Amy C. 2020.Nonprofits in Policy Advocacy: Their Strategies and Stories
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rainey, H. G., Fernandez, S., & Malatesta, D. (2019). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations
(6th ed., p. 393). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
7