Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:03:30.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘More than the Sum of Parts': Social Policy and Expressive Collective Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008

Philip Jones
Philip Jones*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and International Development, University of Bath, Bath E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Response to social policy often differs systematically from predictions premised on instrumental motivation. Individuals respond even when they believe that action by one person will make very little difference. But if each individual is motivated by the intrinsic value of action, collectively individuals will make a difference. If policy informs perceptions of the intrinsic value of action should policy be designed to increase willingness to act as a ‘knight’ or ‘good citizen’?

Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 27 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Akerlof, G. and Kranton, R. E. 2005, ‘Identity and the economics of organizations’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 1, 9–32.Google Scholar
Alesina, A, Gaeser, E. and Sacerdote, B. 2001, ‘Why doesn't the United States have a European-Style welfare state?’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 187–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alm, J., McClelland, G. H. and Schulze, W. D. 1992, ‘Why do people pay taxes?’, Journal of Public Economics, 48, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. 1988, ‘Privately provided goods in a large economy: the limits of altruism’, Journal of Public Economics, 35, 1, 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. 2001, ‘The economics of philanthropy’, in Smelser, N. J. and Bates, P. B., International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., Erard, B. and Feinstein, J. 1998, ‘Tax compliance’, Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 2, 818–860.Google Scholar
Barry, B. 1970, Sociologists, Economists and Democracy, London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1789, The Principles of Morals and Legislation, New York: Macmillan edition 1948.Google Scholar
Berman, G. and Davison, S. 2003, ‘Do donors care? Some Australian evidence’, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14, 4, 421–429.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. 1999, ‘Is equity passé?’, Boston Review, 23, 6, 4.10.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. 2006, ‘Social Preferences: Homo Economicus and Zoon Politikon, in Goodin, R. E. and Tilly, C. (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, G. and Lomasky, L. 1993, Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, G. and Hamlin, A. 2002, ‘Nationalism and federalism: the political constitutions of peace’, in Galeotti, G., Salmon, P. and Wintrobe, R. (eds), Competition and Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259–283.Google Scholar
Brennan, G. and Hamlin, A. 2002, ‘Expressive constitutionalism’, Constitutional Political Economy, 13, 299–311.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. 1965, ‘An economic theory of clubs’, Economica, 32, 1–14.Google Scholar
Brubaker, E. R. 1975, ‘Free ride, free revelation or golden rule?’, Journal of Law and Economics, 8, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. 1968, The Demand and Supply of Public Goods, Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Collard, D. 1978, Altruism and Economy, Oxford: Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. H. and Culyer, A. J. 1973, ‘The economics of giving and selling bood’, The Economics of Charity, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Cooter, R. 1998, ‘Expressive law and economics’, Journal of Legal Studies, 27, 2, 585–608.Google Scholar
Cullis, J. G. and Jones, P. 1998, Public Finance and Public Choice, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cullis, J., Jones, P. and Lewis, A. 2006, ‘Ethical investing: where are we now?’, in Altman, M. (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Behavioral Economics, New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L. 1971, ‘Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 2, 105–115.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. 1999, ‘Trust in government and welfare regimes: attitudes to redistribution and financial cheating in the USA and Norway’, European Journal of Political Research, 35, 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gachter, S. 2000, ‘Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 3, 158–181.Google Scholar
Folbre, N. and Goodin, R. E. 2004, ‘Revealing altruism’, Review of Social Economy, 62, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, C. M. 2001, ‘Social preference, social interest and the demand for redistribution’, Journal of Public Economics, 82, 2, 225–246.Google Scholar
Fong, C. M., Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. 2005, ‘Reciprocity and the welfare state’, in Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. and Fehr, E. (eds), Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 278–302.Google Scholar
Frank, R. H. 1996, ‘What price the moral high ground?’,Southern Economic Journal, 63: 1–17.Google Scholar
Frank, R. H. 1997, ‘The frame of reference as a public good’, Economic Journal, 107, 1832–1847.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. 1997, Not Just For the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Frey, B. S. and Jergen, R. 2001, ‘Motivation crowding out’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 5, 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U. and Rustichini, A. 2000a, ‘Pay enough or don't pay at all’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 791–810.Google Scholar
Gneezy, U. and Rustichini, A. 2000b, ‘A fine is a price’, Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 1–18.Google Scholar
Hanley, N. and Spash, C. L. 1993, Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hochman, H. M. and Rodgers, J. D. 1969, ‘Pareto optimal redistribution’, American Economic Review, 57, 3–5, 542–557.Google Scholar
Ireland, T. R. and Koch, J. V. 1973, ‘Blood and American social attitudes’, The Economics of Charity London Institute of Economic Affairs, 145–155.Google Scholar
Jones, P. 2005, ‘Consumers’ of social policy: policy design, policy response, policy approval’, Social Policy and Society, 4, 3, 237–249.Google Scholar
Jones, P. and Cullis, J. 2000, ‘Individual failure and the analytics of social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 29, 1, 73–93.Google Scholar
Jones, P. and Cullis, J. 2003, ‘Key parameters in policy design: the case of intrinsic motivation’, Journal of Social Policy, 32, 4, 527–547.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. and Thaler, R. H. 1986, ‘Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: entitlements in the market’, American Economic Review, 76, 728–741.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R. 1996, Trust in Organizations, Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Layard, R. 2005, ‘Rethinking public economics: the implications of rivalry and habit’, in Bruni, L. and Porta, P. L. (eds), Economics and Happiness: Framing the Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–169.Google Scholar
Ledyard, J. O. 1995, ‘Public goods: a survey of experimental research’, in Kagel, J. H. and Roth, A. E., The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. 1997, ‘Knights, knaves or pawns? Human behaviour and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 26, 2, 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. 2003, Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. A. and Tyler, T. R. 1988, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, New York and London: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenstein, G. 1999, ‘Because it is there: the challenge of mountaineering for utility theory’, Kyklos, 52, 3, 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, M. S, Kemp, S. and Webley, P. 2005, ‘Factors in lay preferences for government or private supply of services’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 1, 73–88.Google Scholar
Mueller, D. 2003, Public Choice III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. 2005, ‘Policies that crowd out reciprocity and collective action’, in Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. and Fehr, E. (eds), Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 253–277.Google Scholar
Pinker, R. 2006, ‘From gift relationship to quasi markets: an odyssey along the policy Paths of altruism and egoism’, Social Policy and Administration, 40, 1, 10–25.Google Scholar
Pommerhene, W. W., Hart, A. and Feld, L. P. 1997, ‘Steuerhinterziehung und ihre Konrtolee in unter-shiedlichen politischen Systemen’, Homo Oeconomicus, 14, 469–487.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. 1995, ‘Are the NHS reforms working?’, Economic Review, 13, 9–19.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. 1996, ‘Political institutions: an overview’, in Goodin, R. E. and Klingemann, H. D. (eds), A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roy, L. 1998, ‘Why we give: testing economic and social psychology accounts of altruism’, Polity, 30, 3, 383–415.Google Scholar
Schotter, A. 1984, Free Market Economics: A Critical Approach, New York: St Martins Press.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. and Becker, G. 1977, ‘De gustibus non est disputandum’, American Economic Review, 67, 2, 76–90.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. and Thaler, R. H. 2003, ‘Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron’, AEI-Brookings Joint Centre for Regulatory Studies Working Paper No. 03-2 (also published in the University of Chicago Law Review, 70, 4, 1159–1202, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M. 1987, The Possibility of Co-operation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Hastie, C. 2002, ‘Support for state spending: has New Labour got it right?’, in Park, A., Curtice, J., Thomson, K., Jarvis, L. and Bromley, C. (eds), British Social Attitudes: The 19th Report, National Centre for Social Research, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. 1994, Quasi Rational Economics, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. 2003, ‘Libertarian paternalism’, American Economic Review, 93, 175–179.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. and Elling, R. C. 2000, ‘Mapping patterns of support for privatization in the mass public: the case of Michigan, Public Administration Review, 60: 338–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titmuss, R. 1970, The Gift Relationship, New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. E. 2006, ‘States and the crafting of souls: mind, society, and fiscal sociology’, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 59, 516–524.Google Scholar
Warr, P. G. 1982, ‘Pareto optimal redistribution and private charity’, Journal of Public Economics, 19, 1, 21–41.Google Scholar
Wax, A. L. 2000, ‘Rethinking welfare rights: reciprocity norms, reactive attitudes and the political economy of welfare reform’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 63, 1–2, 257–298.Google Scholar