Collective Action Theory & Networks Fall 2007 Sociology 626

Main theme today “Logic” of collective action and the problem of mobilization Quick overview of collective behavior vs. collective action & rationality/irrationality arguments Looking to next week: Importance of networks and social relations in the mobilization process (cycles back to the initial readings + Klandermans, McAdam & Wood/Hughes)

Collective Action Theory From lecture notes

"Olson's problem." The free rider. Public/collective good: Group benefits are inherently shared, cannot privatize your benefit. Thus incentive to "free ride" on the efforts of others Why "public goods" need to be provided coercively through the political system. Also problem of pollution. Problematizes mobilization. Collective action cannot be assumed automatically to flow from common interests. Highlights efficacy: the probability of "making a difference.“ NOTE: Olson did NOT argue that people participate in social movements out of rational self-interest. Do you see why?

Olson's Size argument & his critics Olson argues (says he proves) that larger groups are more likely to have free rider problems. This is widely cited. His equations are actually independent of group size (see Oliver’s proof on web site if you care) He points to a real problem, but REAL issues are efficacy problem = can you by yourself (or you and the social group you are connected to) make a noticeable difference in the collective good? externality problem = is the collective good too much controlled by the actions of others and your own actions are not enough to make a difference?

Selective incentives Private private goods given to people on the basis of whether they have contributed. Olson argues they are necessary. Later theory says not necessary, but helpful. Types of selective incentives. James Q. Wilson. Material: payments, incentives for participating or coercion for not participating Solidary: benefits or costs of participating (or not) arising from relationships with other people, either their respect & honor, or the communal pleasures of doing things together Purposive or moral: the internal feeling of doing the right thing

Critical Mass Theory (Oliver & Marwell) Argue the key to collective action is the small group who play a crucial role Contrast production functions (see pictures) Accelerating: high start up costs, first actors raise the value of later contributions Decelerating: initial contributions most valuable, declining marginal returns to later contributions What matters is not the size of the whole group, but the presence of a critical mass who are socially connected to each other and willing & able to act.

The problem of start-up costs The problem of start-up costs. Critical Mass creates conditions to motivate later contributions

The problem of “free riding The problem of “free riding.” Early contributions make people less motivated to contribute later. The critical mass provides the good for everyone

Early and later phases of movements have different dynamics Early and later phases of movements have different dynamics. Start-up problems early, loss of enthusiasm & reliance on committed or professional activists later

Critical Mass Theory, more Production functions are chosen for feasibility: Instead of trying to get millions of individuals to drive less or choose gas-efficient cars, you lobby Congress for a law to require fewer emissions from cars. You can choose HOW to try to gain a law. Informational campaigns, large demonstrations, disruptive protests, etc. The "size" problem pertains to whether there is a critical mass and what its structure is, and this in turn is linked to the production function. We also developed some theory of organizing: the costs and benefits of mobilizing other people to contribute to collective goods.

Research on Individuals in Collective Action Predictors of participation fit the theory pretty well: concern about the collective good, influence of people around them (networks, solidary incentives), likelihood of others' participating, personal sense of capacity, probability of making a difference approval/disapproval of the statements or tactics of leaders,

Discrepant Evidence HOWEVER, empirical data does NOT fit a rational-action framework entirely Movement participants often REJECT the free-rider dilemma, attribute to themselves personally as individuals the efficacy they think the group would have if everyone acted like them. It is perceived collective efficacy that seems most important. Contrary to theory, participants in movements often report that they bear high costs, while non-participants say participants are not bearing costs (are just having fun).

Collective action (rational action) theory overall People do not necessarily or automatically act out of their common interests Interests matter: what people will gain or lose from various proposals, or what they think they will gain or lose. Checklist of factors that affect decisions, ESPECIALLY efficacy (probability of making a difference) concern about the collective good moral or social incentives. Rational action theory has little (nothing) to say about WHICH goals people will care about or how they define their interests.

Networks are crucial in social movements Communication, coordination, socialization, motivation

How was the research designed? Klandermans & Oegema What was the main point? How was the research designed?

Reading article tables Klandermans, Wood & Hughes, McAdam “High Risk” model

Klandermans & Oegema 1987 Conditional probabilities .74 .79 .4 .17

Klandermans & Oegema: Network Effects Links None Formal Informal Both % Participate 0% 7% 24% 19% Table suggests that informal links are most important!! Tilt of movement to educated, leftist, men came through networks, NOT opinions for/against movement

Klandermans & Oegema: Deciding to Go Left parties, educated are key. Overlap with expect friends to go Additional effect of believing Dutch government has effect Majority who said they would go did not (6/10): cited specific “reasons”

Reading regression tables Look for symbols about “significance”, usually *’s. (Check footnotes, occasionally non-significant results are *’d.) Significant = effect too large to be due to change. MORE SIGNIFICANT IS SMALLER P, p<.05 is significant, p<.001 is more significant. Look at sign of coefficient: + or -, and meaning of variables. [In a few cases, the coefficients are odds ratios instead, which are above 1.0 if effect is positive and below 1.0 if effect is negative.] Unstandardized “b” or “B” coefficients can be compared across equations for the same variables Standardized $ (beta) coefficients tell you how “strong” each variable is compared to others in the same equation.

Interpreting Klandermans & Oegema regression: DV=intend to go Equivalent to saying: LogOdds(Intend) = .04Age - .32Gender + .37Educ + 2.33Voting –7.53 Numbers in parentheses are standard errors. Coefficients are significant when they are substantially larger than their standard error. Here, only education and voting for left parties are significant. Table SHOULD have labeled direction for gender, voting

Klandermans & Oegema: Deciding to Go Left parties, educated are key. Overlap with expect friends to go Additional effect of believing Dutch government has effect Majority who said they would go did not (6/10): cited specific “reasons”

Reading Wood & Hughes Table B is undstandardized regression coefficient; gives equation for attitude toward pornography. The beta ($)column gives standardized coefficients. You can use it to find which independent variables are strongest. Here, age, then sex, then education. The t column is for a t-test, ratio of B to its standard error (not shown). The symbols show that all independent variables are significant.

Wood & Hughes Table Significant predictors are older, female (-male), -education, rural now & rural at 16, Southern manual or lower white collar occupation, came from low income family, not Black, Catholic & Conservative Protestant.

McAdam High Risk Activism

Networks in the readings Discuss the kinds of networks & their role in the movement articles Morris (Black civil rights), Freeman (women’s) and Esterberg (lesbian/gay) Discuss networks in Klandermans mobilization process Discuss networks/socialization in McAdam & Wood/Hughes.