370 books
—
514 voters
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups” as Want to Read:
The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups
by
This book develops an original theory of group and organizational behavior that cuts across disciplinary lines and illustrates the theory with empirical and historical studies of particular organizations. Applying economic analysis to the subjects of the political scientist, sociologist, and economist, Mancur Olson examines the extent to which the individuals that share a
...more
Get A Copy
Paperback, 186 pages
Published
January 1st 1971
by Harvard University Press
(first published 1965)
Friend Reviews
To see what your friends thought of this book,
please sign up.
Reader Q&A
To ask other readers questions about
The Logic of Collective Action,
please sign up.
Be the first to ask a question about The Logic of Collective Action
Community Reviews
Showing 1-30

Start your review of The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups

The Logic of Collective Action
JDN 2456594 PDT 15:55.
The blinders neoclassicists wear are large indeed. This book was written in 1971, and the neoclassical understanding of collective action has, as far as I can tell, not been substantially advanced since then—in over 40 years, the essential conclusions haven't changed.
This would not be a problem, of course, if those conclusions were correct; but they aren't. Indeed they are wrong at a fundamental level; they are almost literally reversed from t ...more
JDN 2456594 PDT 15:55.
The blinders neoclassicists wear are large indeed. This book was written in 1971, and the neoclassical understanding of collective action has, as far as I can tell, not been substantially advanced since then—in over 40 years, the essential conclusions haven't changed.
This would not be a problem, of course, if those conclusions were correct; but they aren't. Indeed they are wrong at a fundamental level; they are almost literally reversed from t ...more

Sep 23, 2009
Lobstergirl
rated it
really liked it
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
Desiderio da Settignano
This is one of the seminal social science works of the 20th century. Olson argued (contrary to the conventional academic wisdom up to that time) that "unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests." (Emphasis his.) It makes no rational sense for an individual to join an organization a
...more

Olson’s main argument is: Individuals will not act in the interest of a group unless there’s some form of coercion, or the group is relatively small. An economist by training, Olson disregards that humans are capable of altruistic behavior and that there are intangible benefits that individuals seek by being loyal to a certain group. Guess the soft science of studying the great lengths many of us are willing to go to in order to belong to a group was not popular in the 1960's. Not quite a terrib
...more

Brain food.
Within a fairly small space the author puts forward a theory that spans economics, political science, and group psychology. He then applies this to liberal economies, Marxist theory, and past and present America (i.e. unions, lobbies, agricultural coops). He breaks a few myths and common misunderstandings, and puts forward an explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of all of these cases that is very compelling. Notable is the attention given to explaining (with data) the history o ...more
Within a fairly small space the author puts forward a theory that spans economics, political science, and group psychology. He then applies this to liberal economies, Marxist theory, and past and present America (i.e. unions, lobbies, agricultural coops). He breaks a few myths and common misunderstandings, and puts forward an explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of all of these cases that is very compelling. Notable is the attention given to explaining (with data) the history o ...more

Is a clearly identified common interest sufficient to motivate individuals’ group-oriented actions? In The Logic of Collective Action, Mancur Olson challenges the conventional wisdoms of his contemporaries that individuals automatically participate in movements or organizations seeking to solve problems at the collective level. If individuals of a large latent group are instrumentally rational, he argues, they would not take actions to contribute to collective interest, unless they are coerced o
...more

An absolutely essential text concerning how club goods and public goods get provisioned, whose conclusions are now so widely accepted that it is hard to understand how illuminating they were when first enunciated.
NOTES
Basic argument:
1) The fact that a goal is common to a group means that no one in the group can be excluded from its benefits.
2) The logics inside small groups and large groups are quite distinct.
3) "Certain small groups can provide themselves with collective goods without relying ...more
NOTES
Basic argument:
1) The fact that a goal is common to a group means that no one in the group can be excluded from its benefits.
2) The logics inside small groups and large groups are quite distinct.
3) "Certain small groups can provide themselves with collective goods without relying ...more

Fantastic little book. The first chapter or two lays out a very simple logic of how groups work. This is basically the Nash equilibrium argument. Olson then shows that the larger the group, the more the argument applies. What is truly breathtaking is how one can take such simple premises and go so far with them. Eventually, these trivial premises completely decimate any "politics is how class x keeps their power on class y" kind of argument it a wonder to see. After showing how group interest is
...more

This is a classic book for understanding cooperation in contributing to public goods. Olson extends and makes accessible Samuelson's arguments about the provision of public goods.
The main contribution (IMO) is identifying the conditions under which public goods *will* be produced. When an individual will gain more from the public good than the entire cost of the good, then that individual will provide it. E.g., if Exxon kept crashing ships into the rocks at this one harbor, then they would like ...more
The main contribution (IMO) is identifying the conditions under which public goods *will* be produced. When an individual will gain more from the public good than the entire cost of the good, then that individual will provide it. E.g., if Exxon kept crashing ships into the rocks at this one harbor, then they would like ...more

Mancur Olsen’s ideas about why groups form, the difference between small and large groups that are exclusive or inclusive, and effects such as free-riding ware explained in his book, The Logic of Cooperation.
While a bit dense and overly infused with formulas and math, his theory is extremely useful. He explains that even though organizations share common interests and goals, they may not behave collectively to satisfy those goals.
Exclusive groups have fewer members and each member receives mor ...more
While a bit dense and overly infused with formulas and math, his theory is extremely useful. He explains that even though organizations share common interests and goals, they may not behave collectively to satisfy those goals.
Exclusive groups have fewer members and each member receives mor ...more

The book that first exposed and explained the concept of "concentrated costs and dispersed benefits," Olson's central thesis is that smaller groups are able to affect political change much more effectively than large groups. The reasons he gives includes lower costs of organization, greater benefits (or selective incentives) per member, and individuals participating within small groups are generally the more passionate and interested ones. Additionally, with large groups, in order to maintain hi
...more

A seminal work in public choice. In The Logic of Collective Action, Olson originates what has become the standard story that the public choice economists tell about the role of special-interests in politics. Namely, that a small group is inherently at an advantage against a larger group in arguments over public policy. Although in total the amount at stake is the same for each group, the individual members of the small group have much more at stake than the individual members of the large group
...more

Read the first third of the book. Had to put it down to finish another Library book. When I picked it up again, I thought to myself, "good god, I really don't want to read any more of this." Any book that I'm that repulsed to pick up again has to get one star.
I'd advise you to read a wikipedia article about the book instead.
...more
I'd advise you to read a wikipedia article about the book instead.
...more

Read this as a supplement (not a requirement) for a community development class. I don't think it would hurt anyone studying in this field to read this book. It's short enough, and easy to understand, but brings home some important concepts about collective action and capacity building that were not in my case, so easily understandable in our text.
...more

Jun 21, 2012
JFN
marked it as abandoned
Read the first few chapters for a project I'm working on and when I got what I was looking for I stopped. No time to go on after I'd gotten what I needed. Very thought provoking though.
...more

Jan 22, 2016
Lauren
added it
Required Reading for Intro Political Science. Interesting... and that 's about it.
...more

Interesting Quotes:
"However similar the purposes may be, critics may object that attitudes in organizations are not at all like those in markets. In organizations, an emotional or ideological element is often also involved. Does this make the argument offered here practically irrelevant?"
"A most important type of organization-the national state-will serve to test this objection. Patriotism is probably the strongest noneconomic motive for organizational allegiance in modern times. This age is som ...more
"However similar the purposes may be, critics may object that attitudes in organizations are not at all like those in markets. In organizations, an emotional or ideological element is often also involved. Does this make the argument offered here practically irrelevant?"
"A most important type of organization-the national state-will serve to test this objection. Patriotism is probably the strongest noneconomic motive for organizational allegiance in modern times. This age is som ...more

I was thinking of joining a professional journalists and/or a professional historians organization, but now I'm not so sure that's a good idea.
...more

I kind of read this book by accident. The author, Mancur Olson, is often mentioned by an author I like, Ashwin Parameswaran, on the topic of "crony capitalism." I saw this book in a used book store and picked it up. It turns out, however, that this particular book is completely unrelated to the work mentioned by Parameswaran. To me it is pretty much a garden-variety exposition of the economic problems associated with collective goods (though perhaps it was groundbreaking when published).
...more

Mancur Olson is essential reading for anyone studying economics or any of the social sciences. He stresses that GROUP action and COLLECTIVE action is the motive force of society, and not the actions of individuals. Thus, history is not determined by individuals, but by groups and collective forces. The relationship between Prof. Olson's theories and welfare economics are obvious, as well as the relation to political science, sociology and just about everything else. Essential reading.
...more

Read only a portion of this book. Generally, author's thesis is that the larger a group is, the less likely it is to pursue a common good unless additional incentives are offered. This is for a number of reasons, but stems mostly from the fact that more members means less "bang" for each "buck" spent in pursuit of the common good.
This hurt my brain a little bit. ...more
This hurt my brain a little bit. ...more

Sep 27, 2008
Wendy
rated it
really liked it
Recommends it for:
doctoral students in public administration
Recommended to Wendy by:
a professor
Shelves:
doctoral-readings
An interesting look at the dynamics of group behavior and effectiveness, it describes the dynamics of small groups and large, and gets it right. Olson's description of how groups work is right on the money in my experience. While not exactly entertaining, it is illuminating.
...more

This book delves into some thought provoking questions, such as why rational actors engage in economic activity that is of no direct benefit to them, and why groups refuse to act collectively even when it is in everyone's best interest.
...more

I'm told that this is the driest book Olson wrote, I'm really hoping that's true, because I have Rise and Decline of Nations as well as Power & Prosperity waiting for me in the next couple of weeks. It was informative though, and he does explain his theory well.
...more
There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
Be the first to start one »
American economist and social scientist who, at the time of his death, worked at the University of Maryland, College Park. Among other areas, he made contributions to institutional economics on the role of private property, taxation, public goods, collective action and contract rights in economic development. Olson focused on the logical basis of interest group membership and participation. The re
...more
News & Interviews
Mateo Askaripour is a Brooklyn-based writer whose bestselling debut novel, Black Buck, was published in January. It's been a Read with Jenna...
91 likes · 13 comments
1 trivia question
More quizzes & trivia...
“To say a situation is ‘lost’ or hopeless is in one sense equivalent to saying it is
perfect, for in both cases efforts at improvement can bring no positive results.”
—
2 likes
More quotes…
perfect, for in both cases efforts at improvement can bring no positive results.”