{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024495058014611087, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009883970777825527, 'mean_word_length': 5.448753462603878, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rational Choice in Ethnic Mobilization: A Critique *

Recently, rational choice theory, based on economic models of cost-benefit calculations for behavior, has received increased attention among some social scientists. They have applied the model to ethnic collective behavior focusing on when and why people join organizations and when "free-riding" (Olson, 1965)becomes the norm. Michael Hechter and his associates (Hechter et at1982) in particular have distinguished themselves in developing further a sophisticated model of what had become known earlier as resource mobilization theory. The proponents of resource mobilization argue against the so-called relative deprivation theory or, what Hechter calls, the stratification model of ethnicity. Relative deprivation as the cause for ethnic collective action has been criticized frequently for not being able to pin down the crucial political behavior. The concept is said to oversimplify the relationship between collective perception of deprivation and behavior into a formula of universal applicability to all historical protests or revolutions without lending itself to predictions. While the two different foci on the etiology of protest are not mutually exclusive and supplement each other, so a number of European researchers argue (Webb et al., 1983) they clearly favor the mobilization approach for its greater explanatory value. Resource mobilization, on the other hand, based on rational choice models of human behavior stresses the level of individual choices as well as the mediating role of organization as the key to the questions posed. In Hechter's et at (1982) formulation especially, ethnic collective action is explained with great consistency and at a high level of abstraction that makes the model application beyond specific cases in explaining the presence as well as absence of ethnic mobilization in the light of clear ethnic discontent. The suggestive and pervasive theory, is, nevertheless, marred by serious deficiencies and omissions. The Hechter et al., theory based on strong positivistic assumptions: "To the degree that we can actually measure the structural constraints faced by different individuals, we are therefore, in a position to estimate... their private interest in participating in collective action" (Hechter et al., 1982:421).