Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T18:35:49.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collective Action and the Group Size Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2002

Joan Esteban  and
Debraj Ray
Joan Esteban
Affiliation:
Instituto de Análisis Económico (CSIC)
Debraj Ray
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the Olson paradox, larger groups may be less successful than smaller groups in furthering their interests. We address the issue in a model with three distinctive features: explicit intergroup interaction, collective prizes with a varying mix of public and private characteristics, and nonlinear lobbying costs. The interplay of these features leads to new results. When the cost of lobbying has the elasticity of a quadratic function, or higher, larger groups are more effective no matter how private the prize. With smaller elasticities, a threshold degree of publicness is enough to overturn the Olson argument, and this threshold tends to zero as the elasticity approaches the value for a quadratic function. We also demonstrate that these results are true, irrespective of whether we examine group sizes over the cross-section in some given equilibrium or changes in the size of a given group over different equilibria.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 95 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 663 - 672
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chamberlin, John R. 1974. “Provision of Collective Goods as a Function of Group Size.” American Political Science Review 68 (June): 707–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esteban, Joan, and Ray, Debraj. 1999. “Conflict and Distribution.” Journal of Economic Theory 87 (2): 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 1995. One for All. The Logic of Group Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Eliakim, Nitzan, Shmuel, and Rosenberg, Jacob. 1990. “Rent-Seeking for Pure Public Goods.” Public Choice 65 (April): 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwell, Gerald, and Oliver, Pamela. 1993. The Critical Mass in Collective Action. A Micro-Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, Martin C. 1974. “Group Size, Group Homogeneity and the Aggregate Provision of a Pure Public Good under Cournot Behavior.” Public Choice 18 (Summer): 107–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitzan, Shmuel. 1991. “Collective Rent Dissipation.” Economic Journal 101 (November): 1522–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, Pamela, and Marwell, Gerald. 1988. “The Paradox of Group Size in Collective Action: A Theory of the Critical Mass, II.” American Sociological Review 53 (February): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pareto, Vilfredo. [1906] 1927. Manual of Political Economy. New York: A.M. Kelley.Google Scholar
Riaz, Khalid, Shogren, Jason F., and Johnson, Stanley R.. 1995. “A General Model of Rent-Seeking for Public Goods.” Public Choice 82 (March): 243–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Todd. 1992. Collective Action: Theory and Applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Skaperdas, Stergios. 1996. “Contest Success Functions.” Economic Theory 7 (February): 283–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Michael. 1987. The Possibility of Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1980. “Efficient Rent-Seeking.” In Toward a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society ed. Buchanan, James M., Tollison, Robert D., and Tullock, Gordon. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Pp. 97–112.Google Scholar