en pl
en pl

Decyzje

Show issue
Year 12/2014 
Issue 24

Relational goods and overcoming barriers to collective action

Carole Uhlaner
Department of Economics, University of California-Irvine

12/2014 (24) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.66

Abstract

Relational goods contribute to understanding why people engage in collective action, notably including political participation, even though, as Olson showed, it would often be more rational for them to free-ride on the activity of others. Relational goods are neither public goods nor private goods but a third type of good. They must be jointly consumed with another person or persons (unlike private goods), but the identity of the other persons matters crucially (unlike the case for public goods). Relational goods can only exist by mutual agreement as part of a relationship with non-arbitrary others, in the context of an interaction. Friendship is a prototypical example. Relational goods can exist along a range of personal contact from direct, where individuals interact face to face, to indirect, where the interaction may be at a distance with a certain type of person. In the indirect case the relational good may frequently take the form of reinforcing a desired social identity. The distinction between “consumption” and “instrumental” goods applies, parallel with other usage. The consumption relational goods are produced independent of any consequences of the action or relationship, while the instrumental ones refl ect consequences, such as from an action that enhances the value of an identity. People who value relational goods may act collectively even if other net benefi ts of action are negative. Larger groups become more, not less, prone to collective activity. Relational goods provide a missing element to understand how the process of mobilization works at the individual level; leaders can infl uence people’s perceptions of what others are doing, of the value of a shared identity, and of the likelihood of success. Some limited empirical evidence is consistent with relational goods playing a role in enhancing collective action.

References

  1. Aldrich, John H. (1993). Rational Choice and Turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 246-278. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardsley, Nicholas. (2005). Interpersonal interaction and economic theory: the case of public goods. In: Economics and Social Interaction: Accounting for Interpersonal Relations (pp.76-104). Benedetto Gui and Robert Sugden, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bimber, Bruce, Andrew J. Flanagin, and Cynthia Stohl. (2012). Collective Action in Organizations: Interaction and Engagement in an Era of Technological Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Blais, Andre. (2000). To Vote or Not to Vote: The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruni, Luigino. (2008. Back to Aristotle? Happiness, Eudaimonia, and Relational Goods. In: Capabilities and Happiness (pp. 114-139). Luigino Bruni, Flavio Comim, and Maurizio Pugno, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruni, Luigino and Stefano Zamagni. (2007). Civil Economy: Efficiency, Equity, Public Happiness. [Google Scholar]
  7. In: Frontiers of Business Ethics (vol. 2). Laszlo Zsolnai, ed. Oxford: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  8. Donati, Pierpaolo. (1986). Introduzione alla sociologia relazionale. Milan: F. Angeli. [Google Scholar]
  9. Donati, Pierpaolo. (2011). Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences. Ontological Explorations. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  10. Frohlich, Norman, Joe A. Oppenheimer, and Oran R. Young. (1971). Political Leadership and the Supply of Collective Goods. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. (2000). The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment. American Political Science Review, 94 (3), 653-663. [Google Scholar]
  12. Granovetter, Mark S. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, 1(1), 201-233. [Google Scholar]
  13. Granovetter, Mark S. (1978). Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(May), 1420-1443. [Google Scholar]
  14. Granovetter, Mark S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. [Google Scholar]
  15. Green, Donald P. and Alan S. Gerber. (2008). Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Green, Donald P., Mary C. McGrath, and Peter M. Aronow. (2013). Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 23(1), 27-48. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gui, Benedetto. (1987). Elements pour une definition d’economie communautaire. Notes et Documents, 19-20, 32-42. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaminski Marek M. (2014). Prisoner’s Dilemma. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199828340-0155 [Google Scholar]
  19. Le, Danvy. (2013). Under Pressure? Effects of Social Pressure on Political Participation in a Vietnamese Community in California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine. [Google Scholar]
  20. Le, Danvy. (2014). “Social Pressure, Group Attachment, and Political Participation in an Ethnic Enclave”. Paper presented at 2014 Western Political Science Association annual meeting, Seattle, Washington. [Google Scholar]
  21. Luce, R. Duncan and Howard Raiffa, (1957). Games and Decisions. New York: John Wiley and Sons. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nussbaum, Martha C. (1986). The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Oppenheimer, Joe. (2012). Principles of Politics: A Rational Choice Theory Guide to Politics and Social Justice. New York NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Olson, Mancur. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rapoport, Anatol. (1966). Two-Person Game Theory: The Essential Ideas. Ann Arbor, MI: University Of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rosenstone, Steven J. and John Mark Hansen. (1993). Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sandler, Todd. (1992). Collective Action: Theory and Applications. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Shubik, Martin. (1984). Game Theory in the Social Sciences: Concepts and Solutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sugden, Robert. (2002). Beyond Sympathy and Empathy: Adam Smith’s Concept of Fellow-feeling. Economics and Philosophy, 18(1), 63-87. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sugden, Robert. (2005). Fellow-feeling. In: Economics and Social Interaction: Accounting for Interpersonal Relations (pp. 52-75). Benedetto Gui and Robert Sugden, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tajfel, Henri, M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and Claude Flament. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(April/June), 149-178. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tajfel, Henri. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(1979), 47. [Google Scholar]
  34. Theocharis, Yannis. (2015). Is Digitally Networked Participation a Form of Political Participation? In: Citizenship and Democracy in an Era of Crisis (pp. 189-205). T. Poguntke, S. Rossteutscher, R. Schmitt-Beck and S. Zmerli, eds. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  35. Turner, John C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(Jan./March), 1-34. [Google Scholar]
  36. Turner, John C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In: Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (pp. 15-40). Henri Tajfel, eds. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Uhlaner, Carole Jean. (2014). Relational Goods and Resolving the Paradox of Political Participation. RECERCA: Revista de Pensament I Analisi, 14(April), 47-72. [Google Scholar]
  38. Uhlaner, Carole J. (1989a). Rational Turnout: The Neglected Role of Groups. American Journal of Political Science, 33(May), 390-422. [Google Scholar]
  39. Uhlaner, Carole J. (1989b). Relational Goods and Participation. Public Choice, 62, 253-285. [Google Scholar]
  40. Uhlaner, Carole Jean. (2002). The Impact of Perceived Representation on Latino Political Participation. [Google Scholar]
  41. Research Monograph 02-06. Irvine, CA: Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine. [Google Scholar]
  42. Uhlaner, Carole Jean and Becki Scola. (2015). Collective Representation as a Mobilizer: Race/ [Google Scholar]
  43. Ethnicity, Gender, and Their Intersections at the State Level. State Politics & Policy Quarterly. Prepublished Oct. 7 2015, DOI: 10.1177/1532440015603576 [Google Scholar]
  44. Uhlaner, Carole Jean and Danvy Le. (2015). The Role of Coethnic Political Mobilization in Electoral Incorporation: Evidence from Orange County, California. Unpublished Manuscript. [Google Scholar]
  45. Uhlaner, Carole Jean and Vahid Niayesh. (2015). “Relational Goods and Participation in a Revolt: An Approach to Understanding the Arab Spring and the Role of Social Media”. Paper prepared for presentation at the 73rd annual Midwest Political Science Association Conference. April 19, 2015. Chicago, Illinois. [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Deth, Jan W. (2014). A Conceptual Map of Political Participation. Acta Politica, 49(3), 349–367. [Google Scholar]
  47. Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Relational goods and overcoming barriers to collective action. (2015). Relational goods and overcoming barriers to collective action. Decyzje, (24), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.66 (Original work published 12/2014AD)

MLA style

“Relational Goods And Overcoming Barriers To Collective Action”. 12/2014AD. Decyzje, no. 24, 2015, pp. 171-190.

Chicago style

“Relational Goods And Overcoming Barriers To Collective Action”. Decyzje, Decyzje, no. 24 (2015): 171-190. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.66.