IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v86y1992i03p647-657_09.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revolutionary Collective Action and the Agent-Structure Problem

Author

Listed:
  • Berejikian, Jeffrey

Abstract

Unraveling the nexus between agents and structures is fundamental to an understanding of political and social change. The two most prominent methodological approaches to explain revolutionary collective action involve either individual reductionism or structural reductionism. Both approaches result in theoretical inconsistencies and/or explanatory anomalies. An alternative proposed here utilizes the concept of framing developed in behavioral decision theory primarily by Quatrone and Tversky. It directly addresses the agent-structure problem by developing the proposition that individuals evoke alternative decision rules in different structural contexts. The result is greater theoretical coherence and resolution of anomalous cases. Additionally, this model begins to define a new role for ideology in explanations of revolutionary collective action.

Suggested Citation

  • Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1992. "Revolutionary Collective Action and the Agent-Structure Problem," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(3), pages 647-657, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:86:y:1992:i:03:p:647-657_09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400090195/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2017. "Cooperating over losses and competing over gains: A social dilemma experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 329-348.
    2. Chris Snijders & Werner Raub, 1998. "Revolution And Risk," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(4), pages 405-425, November.
    3. Carlson Lisa J & Dacey Raymond, 2006. "Confusions of Loss Aversion and Risk Attitude in International Relations and Peace Science," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Roger Berger & Heiko Rauhut & Sandra Prade & Dirk Helbing, "undated". "Bargaining over time in ultimatum game experiments," Working Papers CCSS-10-002, ETH Zurich, Chair of Systems Design.
    5. Haslam, Paul Alexander & Ary Tanimoune, Nasser, 2016. "The Determinants of Social Conflict in the Latin American Mining Sector: New Evidence with Quantitative Data," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 401-419.
    6. Lisa J. Carlson & Raymond Dacey, 2006. "Sequential Analysis of Deterrence Games with a Declining Status Quo," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(2), pages 181-198, April.
    7. William A. Boettcher III, 2004. "Military Intervention Decisions Regarding Humanitarian Crises," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 331-355, June.
    8. Haslam, Paul Alexander, 2021. "The micro-politics of corporate responsibility: How companies shape protest in communities affected by mining," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    9. Jack A. Goldstone, 1994. "Is Revolution Individually Rational?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 6(1), pages 139-166, January.
    10. M.A.L.M. van Assen & C.C.P. Snijders, 2010. "The effect of nonlinear utility on behaviour in repeated prisoner’s dilemmas," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(3), pages 301-332, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:86:y:1992:i:03:p:647-657_09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.