Exclusivity of Citizens’ Initiatives: Vice or Virtue?

Citizens’ initiatives have gained increased attention recent years (e.g. Bakker et al., 2012; Uitermark, 2015; van Dam et al., 2015; Igalla et al., in press) and can be perceived as a form of collective action. Seminal work on collective action (Olson, 1965) and the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Hardin, 1968) challenge the idea that individuals with a shared goal would voluntarily act together to realize their goal (Ostrom, 1990). This rational perspective on human nature and behavior suggests individuals aim to maximize utility, are selfish and focused on short-term benefits (Ostrom et al., 1999). According to rational theoretic predictions, citizens’ initiatives should be nonexistent or at least function sub-optimally. The work of Ostrom, Gardner and Walker (1994) has shown that this rational predictions are not empirically supported in a consentient way. They present evidence that, among others, communication, rules and monitoring can alleviate the collective action problem. In particular ‘boundary rules’ – that determine who can enter an initiative – were found in all the common-pool resources Ostrom and colleagues studied in the field. Starting from the premise that there are types of good based on subtractability and exclusivity (public, collective, club and private goods), boundary rules changes the character of the good. Boundary rules are by definition a mechanism of exclusion. Therefore, if collective action thrives by such rules, the argument here is that citizens’ initiatives show a tendency towards exclusivity. This research is theoretical and descriptive. The goal is to designate what drives the tendency towards exclusion, to find the pattern and to hypothesize the possible effects. The developed argument is based on literature on collective action, group size, trust, professionalization and empirical studies on citizens’ initiatives. In this study it is set out how reasonable it is to argue that exclusivity is a necessity for citizens’ initiatives and it is discussed if this tendency explains the gap between rational theoretic predictions and reality. Several examples of citizens’ initiatives are in this study included illustrate the tendency. This research presents an argument that helps understanding and potentially explains the existence and emergence of citizens’ initiatives based on the argument of a tendency towards exclusion. The emergence of citizens’ initiatives indicates the importance of citizenship and the willingness of citizens to collectively organize themselves to a certain purpose. Citizens’ initiatives are associated with ideals and challenges that need to scrutinized. Collective action is one such challenge. A tendency towards exclusion, as presented here, unravels a potential, inherent feature of citizens’ initiatives. If this tendency can be designated, a reconsideration is needed about the long-term implications for a society where such initiatives are idealized. Exclusion, for example, conflicts with fairness preferences which are also associated with citizens’ initiatives (Falk et al., 2001; Fischbacher et al., 2001; Fenger, 2013). If exclusionary measures alleviate the collective action challenge and helps citizens’ initiatives reach their goals, the social virtue related to citizens’ initiatives is captured in a trade-off.