Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:38:43.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discontent and the Expected Utility of Rebellion: The Case of Peru

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Edward N. Muller ,
Henry A. Dietz  and
Steven E. Finkel
Edward N. Muller
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Henry A. Dietz
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Steven E. Finkel
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Discontent theories of rebellion postulate that politicized discontent will have a strong independent effect on individuals' potential to participate in rebellious political action. Expected utility theories postulate that participation in rebellious action is motivated by expectation of reward and that discontent is relevant at most only insofar as individuals expect that collective action can be successful and that their participation is important to that end. We test these theories with data from a national sample and a sample of students at a protest-prone university in Peru, a country with significant objective conditions of discontent and a high incidence of rebellious political conflict. The results provide no evidence for the discontent models but strong support for the expected utility models. The potential for participation in rebellious political action proves to be a function primarily of discontent weighted by the expectancy of the action's success and the perceived importance of personal participation. Private social and normative rewards and costs also are relevant—but to a lesser extent—for the individual's calculation of the expected utility of participation.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 85 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 1261 - 1282
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, Samuel H., and Kaase, Max, eds. 1979. Political Action. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dietz, Henry A. 1990. “Peru's Sendero Luminoso As a Revolutionary Movement.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 18:123–50.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1980. “Theoretical Approaches to Explaining Collective Political Violence.” In Handbook of Political Conflict, ed. Gurr, Ted Robert. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1989. The Cement of Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Steven E., Muller, Edward N., and Opp, Karl-Dieter. 1989. “Personal Influence, Collective Rationality, and Mass Political Action.” American Political Science Review 83:885–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Steven E., and Opp, Karl-Dieter. 1991. “Party Identification and Participation in Collective Political Action.” Journal of Politics 53:339–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurr, Ted Robert. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. 1990. Indicadores sociales. Lima: Direccion General de Estadisticas Basicas.Google Scholar
Klandermans, Bert. 1984. “Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psychological Expansions of Resource Mobilization Theory.” American Sociological Review 49:583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichbach, Mark Irving. 1989. “An Evaluation of ‘Does Economic Inequality Breed Political Conflict?’ Studies.” World Politics 41:431–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Edward N. 1980. “The Psychology of Political Protest and Violence.” In Handbook of Political Conflict, ed. Gurr, Ted Robert. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Muller, Edward N. 1985. “Income Inequality, Regime Repressiveness, and Political Violence.” American Sociological Review 50:47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Edward N., and Opp, Karl-Dieter. 1986. “Rational Choice and Rebellious Collective Action.” American Political Science Review 80:471–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Edward N., and Seligson, Mitchell A.. 1987. “Inequality and Insurgency.” American Political Science Review 81:425–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Edward N., and Weede, Erich. 1990. “Cross-National Variation in Political Violence: A Rational Action Approach.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 34:624–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opp, Karl-Dieter. 1989. The Rationality of Political Protest. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62:25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rule, James B. 1988. Theories of Civil Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, David. 1978. “Collective Violence: A Research Agenda and Some Strategic Considerations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 22: 499–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1974. The Social Dilemma. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Center for the Study of Public Choice.Google Scholar
Weede, Erich. 1988. “A Utilitarian Approach to Mass Rebellion, Violence, and Revolution.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.Google Scholar
World Bank. 1990. World Development Report 1990. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.