Página InicialGruposDiscussãoMaisZeitgeist
Pesquisar O Sítio Web
Este sítio web usa «cookies» para fornecer os seus serviços, para melhorar o desempenho, para analítica e (se não estiver autenticado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing está a reconhecer que leu e compreende os nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade. A sua utilização deste sítio e serviços está sujeita a essas políticas e termos.

Resultados dos Livros Google

Carregue numa fotografia para ir para os Livros Google.

A carregar...

Free Riding

por Richard Tuck

MembrosCríticasPopularidadeAvaliação médiaDiscussões
333727,058 (3.5)Nenhum(a)
A proposition of contemporary economics and political science is that it would be an exercise of reason, not a failure of it, not to contribute to a collective project if the contribution is negligible, but to benefit from it nonetheless.Tuck makes careful distinctions between the prisone's dilemma problem, threshold phenomena such as voting, and free riding. He analyzes the notion of negligibility, and shows some of the logical difficulties in the idea - and how the ancient paradox of the sorites illustrates the difficulties.… (mais)
Nenhum(a)
A carregar...

Adira ao LibraryThing para descobrir se irá gostar deste livro.

Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.

Mostrando 3 de 3
My main interest in this book was the question of voting - I wanted to see his response to the argument that since your vote is extremely unlikely to change the outcome of the election, and voting carries some cost (in time, money, whatever), it’s not rational to vote. As I understood it, the response is that:

1. Your vote does have a high chance of being part of the set of votes that cause the outcome (e.g., if the candidate needs 51% of the vote to win, and actually receives 60%, then if you think of the ballots as being counted in some order, there’s a good chance that your ballot is part of the 51% that were necessary rather than the 9% that were superfluous).
2. Each vote in that set should be thought of as fully causing the outcome.
3. It can be rational to want to cause an outcome even though the outcome would still have occurred even if you had not.

I don’t find this fully satisfying, but it is interesting food for thought. The book also contains an illuminating discussion of the similarities, differences, and relationships between various types of problems related to collective action, and a fascinating recounting of the history of such problems. ( )
  brokensandals | Feb 7, 2019 |
I can't say this was an interesting book. The author expends a great amount of effort on discussing Olson's Logic of Collective Action and related commentaries. The theme is that individuals should have no reason to contribute to large collective projects if their own contribution is so small that it seems negligible in comparison to the whole. He works his way through the argument from several vantage points, including its origin in the theory of competitive markets and its main dilemma: voting.

The author's solution to the dilemma is that it is rational for me to vote "if I believe that there are likely to be enough votes for my candidate for my vote to be part of a causally efficacious set" (p.60). This straightforward solution indeed seems like a reasonable answer. But overall, Olson's original argument and this counter-argument constitute an exceedingly complicated theoretic discussion of a simple practical issue. Anyone can calculate with a little bit of basic math how likely it is that their vote will contribute to the outcome of an election and then decide whether to vote or not. The likelihood of an efficacious contribution will be inversely proportional to the expected number of abstainees, so it seems that a natural balance should be found.

After going back and fourth on Olson's argument for 100 pages, the author spends another 100+ pages on discussing the history of ideas about negligible contributions in both political and economic thought. This historical epilogue (which actually constitutes more than half of the book) is fairly educational, but Olson's idea itself isn't all that interesting, so how much do we really need to know about its history? All in all, I'm sure this book has inspired academic debate but I don't think that debate is likely to be particularly valuable.
  thcson | Dec 6, 2018 |
Mostrando 3 de 3
sem críticas | adicionar uma crítica
Tem de autenticar-se para poder editar dados do Conhecimento Comum.
Para mais ajuda veja a página de ajuda do Conhecimento Comum.
Título canónico
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Data da publicação original
Pessoas/Personagens
Locais importantes
Acontecimentos importantes
Filmes relacionados
Epígrafe
Dedicatória
Primeiras palavras
Citações
Últimas palavras
Nota de desambiguação
Editores da Editora
Autores de citações elogiosas (normalmente na contracapa do livro)
Língua original
DDC/MDS canónico
LCC Canónico

Referências a esta obra em recursos externos.

Wikipédia em inglês

Nenhum(a)

A proposition of contemporary economics and political science is that it would be an exercise of reason, not a failure of it, not to contribute to a collective project if the contribution is negligible, but to benefit from it nonetheless.Tuck makes careful distinctions between the prisone's dilemma problem, threshold phenomena such as voting, and free riding. He analyzes the notion of negligibility, and shows some of the logical difficulties in the idea - and how the ancient paradox of the sorites illustrates the difficulties.

Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas.

Descrição do livro
Resumo Haiku

Current Discussions

Nenhum(a)

Capas populares

Ligações Rápidas

Avaliação

Média: (3.5)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 1
3.5
4 1
4.5
5

É você?

Torne-se num Autor LibraryThing.

 

Acerca | Contacto | LibraryThing.com | Privacidade/Termos | Ajuda/Perguntas Frequentes | Blogue | Loja | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas Legadas | Primeiros Críticos | Conhecimento Comum | 203,186,484 livros! | Barra de topo: Sempre visível