Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The most prominent modern interpretation of the collective action problem can be found in Mancur Olson's 1965 book The Logic of Collective Action. [6] In it, he addressed the accepted belief at the time by sociologists and political scientists that groups were necessary to further the interests of their members.
As a consequence, these other approaches argue that it is unreasonable to assume that a Pareto-optimal equilibrium solution exists to collective action problems. William H. Riker, a political scientist prominent for his application of game theory and mathematics in political science, argued that a key problem with RCI scholarship was the so ...
The ideal solution is then to undertake this as a collective action, the cost of which is shared. Situations like this include the prisoner's dilemma, a collective action problem in which no communication is allowed, the free rider problem, and the tragedy of the commons, also known as the problem with open access. [12]
The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups is a book by Mancur Olson Jr. published in 1965. It develops a theory of political science and economics of concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs .
The economic free-rider problem is equally pertinent within the realm of global politics, often presenting challenges in international cooperation and collective action. In global politics, states are confronted with scenarios where certain actors reap the benefits of collective goods or actions without bearing the costs or contributing to the ...
The former sees organizations as functional optimal solutions to collective problems, whereas the latter sees organizations as an outcome of actors' individual and collective goals. [38] Since individual and collective goals may conflict, the latter version of RCI accepts that suboptimal institutions are likely. [39]
The collective action theory was first published by Mancur Olson in 1965. Olson argues that any group of individuals attempting to provide a public good has difficulty doing so efficiently. Olson argues that any group of individuals attempting to provide a public good has difficulty doing so efficiently.
It therefore generalizes Condorcet's voting paradox, and shows similar problems exist for every collective decision-making procedure based on relative comparisons. [ 1 ] Plurality-rule methods like first-past-the-post and ranked-choice (instant-runoff) voting are highly sensitive to spoilers, [ 6 ] [ 7 ] particularly in situations where they ...