Elayne Guzman Summer 2019 Pol 241- Chap 3


Elayne Guzman
                             Cooperation and Conflict in the Global Political Economy, Chap 3

Mancur Olson “The Logic of Collective Action”


Quote:
“But it is not in fact true that the idea that groups will act in their self-interest follows logically from the premise of rational and self-interested behavior. It does not follow, because all of the individuals in a group would gain if they achieved their group objective, that they would act to achieve that objective, even if they were all rational and self interested. Indeed, unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests.”
Meaning/Chosen:

For Olson, if everyone in a group (of any size) has interests in common, then they will act collectively to achieve them and in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority. As an economist, Olson investigates the economic incentives and disincentives for group formation, especially political and trade organizations. Olson believes that individuals are led to act in a self-interested manner that interferes with any desire to work toward a collective good. Olson does make very convincing arguments about the difficulties in organizing people. Certainly, many people do not want to invest resources into an effort that they will gain the benefit of regardless of their effort. People seem to join organizations for other reasons at certain times. Although all parties in a group may strongly desire and benefit from a particular collective good (e.g., a stable climate), under many circumstances they will not take individual action to achieve that collective good. In particular, they often find it in their individual best interest to act against their collective interest.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Summer 2019 POL 241 Chap 4- Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games @ Robert D. Putnam

Elayne Guzman Summer 2019 POL 241 Chap 4 Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games @ Robert D. Putnam Quote: “The politics of many international negotiations can usefully be conceived by a two level game. At the national level, domestic groups pursue their interests by pressuring the government to adopt favorable policies, and politicians seek power by constructing coalitions among those groups. At the international level, national governments seek to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures, while minimizing the adverse consequences of foreign developments. Neither of the two games can be ignored by central decision-makers, so long as their countries remain interdependent, yet sovereign.”   Meaning/Chosen:     Putnam wants to model how domestic politics affects international relations, thus leaving purely statistic/realist perspectives. He assumes that international decision makers are concerned both with domestic...
Read more

T.H. Marshall, “Citizenship and Social Rights”; Michael Mann, “Ruling Class Strategies and Citizenship”; Charles Tilly “Where Do Rights Come From?

Elayne Guzman                                   Citizenship and Social Class by T.H. Marshall Quote: “ All who possess the status are equal with respects to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed” Meaning: It means that for Marshall a concept of citizenship bears a certain relevance to present day society. For Marshall as women are recognized in society as much more important and vital citizens, their status and therefore their rights increase; proven to be an excellent way in which citizenship is viewed. Chosen : I chose this quote because as men or women, we are equal to the rights and duties within society and those rights should be respected in every single citizen as long as that person is a member of the community and serves, respect and value the community.                   ...
Read more

The Moral Dilemma of US Immigration Policy: Open Borders Versus Social Justice? By Stephen Macedo

  The Moral Dilemma of US Immigration Policy: Open Borders Versus Social Justice? By Stephen Macedo. Quote: “Most people seems to accept that wealthy societies owe the first sort of concern to human beings generally, via humanitarian assistance, whether societies should pool their efforts and seek to lift poorer countries at least up to a level of basic decency; exactly what level is adequate or morally required is an important question” Meaning/Chosen: Humanitarian assistance to poor countries should be provided in an effort to ease suffering and provide a basic level of decency, especially when those countries have been exploited by richer countries. It’s true that American society should properly take care of their own less-well off, and then allow for distributive justice abroad. By doing this, immigration to US will decrease and people would not risk their lives leaving their countries, in an illegal and dangerous way, for a better life in US.
Read more