Thoughts on Mancur Olson
I. This is the classic book on what came to be called the
"collective choice" perspective on collective behavior
A. Olson is an economist
1. he criticizes some "traditional" sociology (pp. 1819)
2. but he embraces most of the theories of collective
behavior and mass society
3. he also embraces psychological theories (like
LeBon) for the irrational social movements,
including fads, panics, utopians, etc.
B. This was published in 1965 (and reprinted in 1971)
1. society had not yet become postmodern or even
postindustrial
2. labor was still a significant actor
a. prior to 1964, big labor, big capital, and
Southern union-busting racists supported the
Democratic Party
b. unionization rates, although falling were still
high (over 20% of the civilian labor force: see
Hogan 2005:173)
c. wages from mfg were still greater than
combined wages from sales and services in the
U.S.
3. the farm crisis (and farm aid) had not yet been
discovered
4. the Democratic Party (although struggling)
continued to dominate the federal government
a. LBJ was president in 1965
b. the Democrats controlled both houses of
congress
c. the federal equal opportunity laws had just
been enacted (in 1964)
5. Martin Luther King, Jr. had just given his "I Have a
Dream Speech" at the March on Washington (1963)
6. urban riots, black power, student's, women's, and
environmental movements had yet to emerge
C. Nevertheless, this book stands the test of time pretty
well
1. if anything, it is more reasonable than the current
crop of rational choice theories, since Olson
maintains that religious movements, for example,
might not be best analyzed with this theory (see
Finke and Stark)
2. it remains a challenge for pluralist and similar
conservative theories of interest group politics
3. it provides a theoretical basis for arguing that elites
dominate republican government
4. thus it represents an exceptionally well grounded
base for theories of elite domination (e.g., Mills,
Domhoff, etc., on the Power Elite)
D. Most important, this book, together with LeBon,
provides a good sense of where sociological theories of
collective action stood in 1965
1. LeBon provides a classic statement of collective
behavior theory
2. Olson is the classic statement of collective choice
3. these were the dominant perspectives (conservative
and liberal) on collective action and social
movements when I entered graduate school in 1975
2
II. Olson's Challenge
A. Olson argued that latent groups could not adequately
motivate its members to act collectively in pursuit of
public goods
1. inclusive goods: could not be denied nonmembers
(e.g., clean air)
2. nondivisible goods: could not be distributed
inequitably (e.g., peace)
3. large, relatively homogeneous groups: where no
member or small set of members were willing or
able to pay the entire cost of the public good
B. Benefits of
1. small groups: individual benefits/total costs are
greater
2. groups with rich members
a. willing to absorb total cost
b. exploitation of rich by poor
C. Need for selective incentives
D. Advantage of by-product groups
1. lobbies cannot compel membership (in democratic
polity)
2. collective (public) goods are not adequate to
motivate members (see above)
3. only groups organized for other purposes (unions,
professional, business, farm cooperative/insurance)
can induce or compel membership participation
E. Advantage of special interests
1. small groups
2. groups with wealthy members
F. Noneconomic groups
3
1. obviously more difficult to explain from this
perspective
a. unlike modern rational choice theories (e.g,
Finke and Stark), Olson sees problems in
explaining philanthropic and religious groups
as rational actors
b. suggests fraternal/social groups could be
explained
2. defers to psychology to explain "true believers"
G. The future of collective action
1. the increasing scale of public goods
2. increasing political conflict
3. shift from quantity (GDP per capita) to quality of
life: "New" social movements
4. increasing importance of SMOs and entrepreneurs:
McCarthy and Zald
III. The State of Social Movement theory in 1965
A. Routine collective action and challenges by "rational
actors" could be explained by Olson or Oberschall as
"collective choice"
1. liberal challenge to pluralist theory: recognized elite
advantage and problems of mobilization
2. minimized distinction between lobbies and
"rational" (economic) social movements
3. tended to see all interests as comparable, with a bias
toward economic interests and economic rationality
(assumptions of model)
4
B. Nonroutine collective action and "irrational" actors
could be explained by collective behavior, mass society,
social disorganization theories
1. conservative defense of status quo
2. stressed distinction between routine and nonroutine
collective action
a. routine was limited to institutionalized means
and reasonable goals
b. nonroutine was disruptive and unreasonable
C. Collective behavior and collective choice
1. were not competing theories
2. they were compatible
3. so long as they were applied to different types of
actions and movements: the critical question is,"Is
this movement rational?"
D. Thus micro-economics and psychology dominated the
study of collective action and social movements
1. until the student movement effectively challenged
the faculty
a. students made unreasonable demands and used
unreasonable tactics
b. but these were the best and the brightest
students
(1) students committed to civil rights and
racial justice
(2) outstanding graduate students in
sociology and political science
departments: Tom Hayden, Bob Perrucci,
Marc Pillisuk, Harry Targ
5
2. then social science faculty admitted that the old
theories did not fit the new social movements
a. Gamson, Tilly, and Zald introduced Resource
Mobilization theory
b. this became the dominant perspective by 1990s
c. then it was challenged by
(1) "New" social movements theory
(2) Rational Choice
IV. What Do You Think?
A. About Olson?
B. LeBon and Olson?
C. How these might be applied to explain your social
movement/collective action event/epoch?
6