| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Since Olson's free-rider paradox, scholars have questioned the applicability of rational choice analyses to the study of nationalism and other forms of collective action. The most heated debates have centered on the participation of ordinary group members rather than elites. Leaders lack the material resources to adequately remunerate grassroots activists for their exploits or to individually punish defectors. This article posits that the problem lies not with the strategic thinking of nonelites but with the way rationality has been conceptualized in the scholarly literature. We should challenge the standard assumption that rational behavior is limited to accruing material rewards. This article will reexamine this conjecture in light of alternative interpretations underscoring that individuals endeavor to maximize nonmaterial utilities.
|