Interpretation of collective action terms

The theory of collective action is a classic expression of collectivism put forward by Olson. Olson believes that if all individuals in a group can make profits after achieving the goal of the music group, then it cannot be concluded that they will take action to achieve that goal, even if they are rational and seek self-interest. In fact, unless there are few people in the group, or unless there are compulsory or other special means to make individuals act according to their own interests, rational individuals who pursue self-interest will not take action to realize their own or group interests. In other words, even if all individuals in a large group are rational and pursue their own interests, and as a group, they can benefit from taking actions to achieve the same interests or goals, but they still will not voluntarily take actions to achieve the same or group interests. It is far from the logical inference that the group composed of individuals will take actions to realize their interests, which is far from the assumption that individuals in the group will promote their personal interests rationally.

The basic logic of Olson's argument for collective action is that, other things being equal, the more individuals in a group, the smaller the gains, so the more individuals in a group, the farther away from the optimal level. Therefore, the efficiency of groups with more members is generally lower than that of groups with fewer members.

In order to help us better understand, Olson put forward a hypothesis that the income of workers or enterprises represented by an organization accounts for 1% of gdp. If this organization wants to improve the efficiency of social and economic activities, it must bear all the expenses paid for it. However, this organization can only get 1% of the total social income. Therefore, only when the total social income is 100 times higher than the cost of achieving this goal, the organization will get net income, otherwise the organization will not act for the collective product (because of the hypothesis of economic man), so is the relationship between a single organization and the country, and so is the relationship between a single member and the group. Here we might as well call Olson's logic of collective action the law of reciprocity of collective action.

Evaluation: Olson may be right in one-off game, but social and economic development is the balance of many games. In many games, the situation is much more complicated, so it is hard to say that there is only one hitchhiking strategy. Olson's hypothesis completely ignores the role of system and morality in people's behavior, as if economic man lives completely in Hobbes' jungle law. In addition, this is not in line with the reality of western countries, so it is of little significance in actual political life.