Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Collective action occurs through the decision of individuals, who are regarded as rational actors seeking to maximize self-interest, to participate in an activity with the purpose of achieving common or group interests. The study of collective action therefore provides valuable insight for understanding the dynamics of activities or movements generated and sustained by a group of cooperating individuals.

The Problem of Collective Action

Collective action may be a one-time incident, such as the payment of contributions by members of a community to renovate their town hall, or a long-term process, such as participation in a decade-long struggle for the improvement of civil rights. Regardless of the duration of the action and the degree of commitment required for its sustenance, the main feature of collective action is that it rarely occurs in natural conditions. This problem is commonly explained through the logic of what is known as the Prisoners' Dilemma.

The Prisoners' Dilemma is based on the fundamental assumption that individuals are self-interested in the sense that they maximize utility. The following scenario provides an illustration of the concept:

Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Both care much more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each. “You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning.” (Kuhn 2003)

To summarize, if Tanya and Cinque both choose to remain silent, they will both achieve the most positive outcomes. If both confess, they will face somewhat more negative results. But if one chooses to confess while the other remains silent, the one who remains silent will suffer the most negative consequences while the one who confesses will enjoy the most positive outcome. Although remaining silent seems to be the best choice for both players, the individuals are likely to end up choosing confession for two reasons. First, confession is the strategy that offers a better outcome regardless of the other player's choice. Second, due to the lack of trust, individuals choose confession in order to avoid potential exploitation by the other player. In other words, confession will be the desirable strategy for the rational, self-interested individual. The important discovery here is that what is in the best interest of the group differs from that which is in the best interest of the individual.

When the Prisoners' Dilemma is applied to a group setting (this is called the N-Person Prisoners' Dilemma), individuals will be reluctant to cooperate for similar reasons. Each individual will have the choice to either contribute or not contribute for a collective (or public) good. The best outcome for the group as a whole will be produced when all members of the group decide to contribute. Everyone will have paid the same cost and will receive equal shares of the collective good in return. But the best outcome for the individual, on the other hand, will be to not contribute and exploit the contributions made by other members instead, since through this choice the individual will be able to reap benefits without paying the cost. This phenomenon is called the “free-rider problem,” and it would be logical for self-interested individuals to become free-riders since their goal is to secure maximum gain. Consequently, individuals will be reluctant to engage in collective action for two reasons. First, the strategy of non-contribution offers a better outcome than the strategy of contribution. Second, individuals attempt to avoid possible exploitation by other players in the group.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading