If the leader of a roving bandit gang, who just plunders, can take control of a territory, they become a "stationary bandit," gaining an "encompassing interest" in the area's prosperity, leading them to provide protection, tax instead of just steal, and encourage economic growth as a foundation for long-term plunder, a key concept in understanding state formation. This shift from random raiding (roving) to monopolized taxation (stationary) creates incentives for stability, as the leader profits more from a productive, protected populace than from destroying it through short-term raids, according to theories by Mancur Olson.
- Short-term focus: Maximizes immediate plunder, destroying wealth.
- No incentive to build: Doesn't invest in the territory because they'll move on.
- Insecure property: Creates high risk, discouraging production.
- Settling Down: The leader claims a territory, becoming the sole power.
- Monopoly on Crime: Becomes the only tax collector/raider.
- Encompassing Interest: Develops a stake in the territory's long-term success.
- Provides Public Goods: Offers protection from external threats and internal disorder (e.g., providing security).
- Taxes for Revenue: Imposes regular, predictable taxes rather than total plunder.
- Encourages Growth: Promotes economic activity because they benefit from increased wealth.
This theory explains how early states might have formed from anarchy, with the bandit leader evolving into a sovereign, establishing governance through self-interest rather than altruism.
Short answer: yes, partially—but unevenly, context-dependently, and often more weakly than Olson himself implied.
Longer answer, broken down by his main claims.
1. The Logic of Collective Action (1965)
Core claim
Small, concentrated groups with strong incentives will organize effectively; large, diffuse groups will free-ride and struggle to act collectively without coercion or selective incentives.
Empirical support
Strong, but conditional.
-
Well supported in economics and political science:
-
Trade associations, professional guilds, agricultural lobbies, and industry groups consistently punch above their weight.
-
Regulatory capture literature (Stigler, Peltzman) aligns closely with Olson.
-
Lobbying data shows concentrated interests dominate agenda-setting relative to mass publics.
-
-
But important qualifications emerged:
-
Elinor Ostrom showed that collective action can succeed without coercion under certain institutional and cultural conditions.
-
Social norms, identity, repeated interaction, and moral commitments weaken Olson’s strict rational-choice assumptions.
-
Large groups can mobilize when framed affectively or morally (civil rights movement, nationalism).
-
Verdict: Olson identified a real structural tendency, but overstated its inevitability.
2. The Rise and Decline of Nations (1982)
Core claim
Over time, stable societies accumulate “distributional coalitions” (special interests) that slow growth, reduce adaptability, and create institutional sclerosis. Shocks (wars, revolutions) clear them out.
Empirical support
Mixed and contested.
Supporting evidence:
-
Post-war Germany and Japan experienced rapid growth after institutional resets.
-
Some cross-national studies show correlations between:
-
Interest-group density and slower productivity growth
-
Regulatory complexity and reduced innovation
-
-
Case studies of late-stage democracies show rent-seeking inertia.
Problems:
-
Causality is unclear: slow growth may cause rent-seeking, not vice versa.
-
Nordic countries have:
-
High organization
-
Strong unions
-
Extensive coordination
…yet maintain high productivity and innovation.
-
-
“Distributional coalitions” is often too coarse a category to measure cleanly.
Verdict: The theory captures a possible dynamic, not a general law.
3. Stationary Bandits (1993)
Core claim
Rational autocrats (“stationary bandits”) may provide public goods to maximize long-term extraction, whereas roving bandits (failed states) destroy value.
Empirical support
Surprisingly strong, but morally unsettling.
-
Development economics confirms that:
-
Predictable extraction can outperform chaos.
-
Weak but stable states often grow faster than fragmented ones.
-
-
Aligns with:
-
North, Wallis & Weingast on limited access orders
-
Acemoglu & Robinson’s early-stage institutional arguments
-
But:
-
Does not explain transitions to inclusive institutions.
-
Can normalize authoritarian developmentalism without addressing repression.
Verdict: Descriptively useful, normatively thin.
Deeper criticisms (where Olson struggles)
1. Over-rationalized human behavior
His model assumes:
-
Instrumental rationality
-
Self-interest
-
Weak moral motivation
This misses:
-
Affective solidarity
-
Ethical commitments
-
Sacrifice without selective incentives
2. Thin ontology of institutions
Olson treats institutions largely as:
-
Incentive structures
-
Constraint systems
He underplays:
-
Symbolic meaning
-
Legitimacy
-
Cultural reproduction
-
Historical trauma
3. Ambiguous political implications
His work can be (and has been) used to justify:
-
Technocracy
-
Anti-democratic insulation
-
Suspicion of popular mobilization
Even when empirically grounded, the normative direction is unstable.
Overall assessment
| Claim | Empirical support |
|---|---|
| Collective action is harder for large groups | Strong (with caveats) |
| Special interests distort policy | Strong |
| Institutional sclerosis inevitably accumulates | Moderate to weak |
| Shocks improve institutional efficiency | Context-dependent |
| Stable extraction beats chaos | Strong descriptively |
Bottom line
Olson is empirically serious but theoretically brittle.
His insights work best as:
-
Structural tendencies, not laws
-
Diagnoses of failure modes, not full explanations
-
Inputs into broader institutional ecologies, not standalone models
Used carefully, he explains why things gum up.
Used naively, he mistakes friction for fate.
No comments:
Post a Comment