"Letting George Do It"

Does Olson Explain Low Levels of Participation?

Alexander Grant Jordan, William Anthony Maloney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article contributes to the discussion of one component of the “crisis” in political participation by looking at (non‐) participation in groups. The starting point is that political science has a heavy gauge tool for accounting for such low inactivity – Olson’s (1965 Olson, M. 1965, 1971. The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[Google Scholar]
) free rider proposition. The article accepts the influence of Olson, but uses survey data to investigate whether non‐participation is a self‐interested strategy, as he suggests, or whether it reflects broader differences in resources and orientations to political action. While it is often assumed that surveys demonstrating that members join for collective ends “disprove” Olson’s thesis, this article accepts his rebuttal that these surveys of joiners tell us little about those who refuse to join. Olson accepted that (trivial) numbers of members would join (in addition to those seeking selective benefits), but argued that the number joining for collective goods would be dwarfed by those failing to participate. These he assumed to be free‐riding. This article revisits the definition, and supplies theoretically illuminating survey material from non‐members as well as members. The data show little support for the free‐riding instinct. While Olson implies that free‐riding is logical for almost all potential members, this article suggests that non‐participation is not simply a “leftover” from those not mobilized, but is itself based on specific factors.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)115-139
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties
Volume16
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2006

Fingerprint

participation
instinct
political action
political participation
collective behavior
search engine
political science
resources
Group

Cite this

"Letting George Do It" : Does Olson Explain Low Levels of Participation? / Jordan, Alexander Grant; Maloney, William Anthony.

In: Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 16, No. 2, 07.2006, p. 115-139.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jordan, Alexander Grant ; Maloney, William Anthony. / "Letting George Do It" : Does Olson Explain Low Levels of Participation?. In: Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 2006 ; Vol. 16, No. 2. pp. 115-139.
@article{11fd8e6c11f242838456791c439b823b,
title = "{"}Letting George Do It{"}: Does Olson Explain Low Levels of Participation?",
abstract = "This article contributes to the discussion of one component of the “crisis” in political participation by looking at (non‐) participation in groups. The starting point is that political science has a heavy gauge tool for accounting for such low inactivity – Olson’s (1965 Olson, M. 1965, 1971. The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]) free rider proposition. The article accepts the influence of Olson, but uses survey data to investigate whether non‐participation is a self‐interested strategy, as he suggests, or whether it reflects broader differences in resources and orientations to political action. While it is often assumed that surveys demonstrating that members join for collective ends “disprove” Olson’s thesis, this article accepts his rebuttal that these surveys of joiners tell us little about those who refuse to join. Olson accepted that (trivial) numbers of members would join (in addition to those seeking selective benefits), but argued that the number joining for collective goods would be dwarfed by those failing to participate. These he assumed to be free‐riding. This article revisits the definition, and supplies theoretically illuminating survey material from non‐members as well as members. The data show little support for the free‐riding instinct. While Olson implies that free‐riding is logical for almost all potential members, this article suggests that non‐participation is not simply a “leftover” from those not mobilized, but is itself based on specific factors.",
author = "Jordan, {Alexander Grant} and Maloney, {William Anthony}",
year = "2006",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1080/13689880600715979",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "115--139",
journal = "Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties",
issn = "1745-7289",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - "Letting George Do It"

T2 - Does Olson Explain Low Levels of Participation?

AU - Jordan, Alexander Grant

AU - Maloney, William Anthony

PY - 2006/7

Y1 - 2006/7

N2 - This article contributes to the discussion of one component of the “crisis” in political participation by looking at (non‐) participation in groups. The starting point is that political science has a heavy gauge tool for accounting for such low inactivity – Olson’s (1965 Olson, M. 1965, 1971. The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]) free rider proposition. The article accepts the influence of Olson, but uses survey data to investigate whether non‐participation is a self‐interested strategy, as he suggests, or whether it reflects broader differences in resources and orientations to political action. While it is often assumed that surveys demonstrating that members join for collective ends “disprove” Olson’s thesis, this article accepts his rebuttal that these surveys of joiners tell us little about those who refuse to join. Olson accepted that (trivial) numbers of members would join (in addition to those seeking selective benefits), but argued that the number joining for collective goods would be dwarfed by those failing to participate. These he assumed to be free‐riding. This article revisits the definition, and supplies theoretically illuminating survey material from non‐members as well as members. The data show little support for the free‐riding instinct. While Olson implies that free‐riding is logical for almost all potential members, this article suggests that non‐participation is not simply a “leftover” from those not mobilized, but is itself based on specific factors.

AB - This article contributes to the discussion of one component of the “crisis” in political participation by looking at (non‐) participation in groups. The starting point is that political science has a heavy gauge tool for accounting for such low inactivity – Olson’s (1965 Olson, M. 1965, 1971. The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]) free rider proposition. The article accepts the influence of Olson, but uses survey data to investigate whether non‐participation is a self‐interested strategy, as he suggests, or whether it reflects broader differences in resources and orientations to political action. While it is often assumed that surveys demonstrating that members join for collective ends “disprove” Olson’s thesis, this article accepts his rebuttal that these surveys of joiners tell us little about those who refuse to join. Olson accepted that (trivial) numbers of members would join (in addition to those seeking selective benefits), but argued that the number joining for collective goods would be dwarfed by those failing to participate. These he assumed to be free‐riding. This article revisits the definition, and supplies theoretically illuminating survey material from non‐members as well as members. The data show little support for the free‐riding instinct. While Olson implies that free‐riding is logical for almost all potential members, this article suggests that non‐participation is not simply a “leftover” from those not mobilized, but is itself based on specific factors.

U2 - 10.1080/13689880600715979

DO - 10.1080/13689880600715979

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 115

EP - 139

JO - Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties

JF - Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties

SN - 1745-7289

IS - 2

ER -