Social Organization, Civic Responsibility and Collective Action: Game Theory Models of Community Participation in Development Projects

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard White
2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Burns ◽  
Ewa Roszkowska ◽  
Nora Machado des Johansson

Abstract This article presents a relatively straightforward theoretical framework about distributive justice with applications. It draws on a few key concepts of Sociological Game Theory (SGT). SGT is presented briefly in section 2. Section 3 provides a spectrum of distributive cases concerning principles of equality, differentiation among recipients according to performance or contribution, status or authority, or need. Two general types of social organization of distributive judgment are distinguished and judgment procedures or algorithms are modeled in each type of social organization. Section 4 discusses briefly the larger moral landscapes of human judgment – how distribution may typically be combined with other value into consideration. The article suggests that Rawls, Elster, and Machado point in this direction. Finally, it is suggested that the SGT framework presented provides a useful point of departure to systematically link it and compare the Warsaw School of Fair Division, Rawls, and Elster, among others.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Rebecca Margaret Halliday Ford

<p>This dissertation explores the advocacy for the Christchurch Town Hall that occurred in 2012-2015 after the Canterbury Earthquakes. It frames this advocacy as an instance of collective-action community participation in a heritage decision, and explores the types of heritage values it expressed, particularly social values. The analysis contextualises the advocacy in post-quake Christchurch, and considers its relationship with other developments in local politics, heritage advocacy, and urban activism. In doing so, this dissertation considers how collective action operates as a form of public participation, and the practical implications for understanding and recognising social value.  This research draws on studies of practices that underpin social value recognition in formal heritage management. Social value is held by communities outside institutions. Engaging with communities enables institutions to explore the values of specific places, and to realise the potential of activating local connections with heritage places. Such projects can be seen as participatory practices. However, these processes require skills and resources, and may not be appropriate for all places, communities and institutions. However, literature has understudied collective action as a form of community participation in heritage management. All participation processes have nuances of communities, processes, and context, and this dissertation analyses these in one case. The research specifically asked what heritage values (especially social values) were expressed through collective action, what the relationship was with the participation processes, communities, and wider situation that produced them, and the impact on institutional rhetoric and decisions. The research analysed values expressed in representations made to council in support of the Town Hall. It also used documentary sources and interviews with key informants to analyse the advocacy and decision-making processes and their relationships with the wider context and other grassroots activities. The analysis concluded that the values expressed intertwined social and professional values. They were related to the communities and circumstance that produced them, as an advocacy campaign for a civic heritage building from a Western architectural tradition. The advocacy value arguments were one of several factors that impacted the decision. They have had a lasting impact on rhetoric around the Town Hall, as was a heritage-making practice in its own right. This dissertation makes a number of contributions to the discussion of social value and community in heritage. It suggests connections between advocacy and participation perspectives in heritage. It recommends consideration of nuances of communities, context, and place meanings when using heritage advocacy campaigns as evidence of social value. It adds to the literature on heritage advocacy, and offers a focused analysis of one of many heritage debates that occurred in post-quake Christchurch. Ultimately, it encourages practice to actively integrate social and community values and to develop self-reflexive engagement and valuation processes. Despite inherent challenges, participatory processes offer opportunities to diversify understandings of value, co-produce heritage meanings with communities, and empower citizens in democratic processes around the places they live with and love.</p>


2009 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bowen ◽  
G. Acciaioli

This paper presents a model of development action synthesising the development arena framework with collective action theory. It shows how application of this model in the Engineers Without Borders Australia (EWB) water supply improvement and capacity building project in Tenganan, Indonesia has helped to maximise the extent to which the project practice can reflect the project rhetoric as “bottom-up” or community-inspired. The model posits a broad range of stakeholders actively engaged in development action: each stakeholder is different, with its own interests, missions, procedures, and ways of deploying power in development action. Recognising the multiplicity of subjects of development is especially crucial for improving bottom-up practice. Connections and interactions among stakeholders are inherently problematic, and must be negotiated to accomplish development work, as tensions in the dynamic among stakeholders may operate to restrict the success of these “bottom-up” development projects.


2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Jongwon Choi

Current theories on the logic of collective action have two problems in common. First, with some exceptions, authors are not very careful about specifying what kind of collective action or goods they are deal with. Secondly, current theories of interest groups have not been specific about the theoretical foundations on which their arguments are standing. Given these theoretical problems, this paper has three purposes. The purposes will be elaborated in three subsequent sections. section II will investigate a more comprehensive multi-dimensional typology of collective action problems. Section III will discuss the relevance of the theory of public goods and game theory to the analysis of collective action problems. In Section IV, by picking up two representative examples, we will demonstrate the conditions under which two major analytical frameworks can be best applied.


2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürg Helbling

AbstractThe paper explores the main paradigmatic failures of structural functionalism in anthropology. Structural functionalism explains institutions and social behavior by their contribution to the reproduction of social structure. Starting from Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski, who represent two main variants of functionalism in anthropology, its main paradigmatic problems are discussed: its inability to analyze social conflict and change, its reducing of society to norms and values as well as its mode of explaining social facts. These failures are illustrated by two functional theories of tribal wars, by Evans-Pritchard and by Rappaport. Various theoretical alternatives emerge from the decline of functionalism in anthropology. Conflict theory as well as game theory, new institutionalism, theories of collective action and evolutionary economics represent true alternatives. This again is illustrated by a theory of tribal war, explaining cooperation both within local groups and between allies against the background of the warlike social environment in which local groups are interacting.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document