Collective isn't a four letter word

Chris Blattman had an interesting post up today on the roots of group action. Drawing on his field experience in Liberia, he offers an anecdote that seems to reveal he believes that collective action is a social phenomenon capable of improving the efficacy of international aid.

It is an interesting conception. He is right in saying that donors prefer to give money to "groups". Agencies like to work with organizations as it offers a sense of legitimacy and allows for a more for formalized relationship than could exist with unorganized communities or individuals. More importantly, such group think or collective action can promote greater civic engagement, pride and hopefully efficiency and production. This is not a new idea: de Tocqueville surmised that American civic associations were behind our unique embrace of a radically new political (and resultant economic) system. More recently, Robert Putnam gained notoriety with Bowling Alone, his work that equated the decline of American power with lower rates of social interaction and public discourse.

The premise seems rather obvious. Our social capital, the net worth of our relationships and the "wealth" they create, increases if we participate in group life. Blattman gets at the real question though: how do we encourage this type of behavior in the context of war-torn or otherwise struggling states? Attaching strings to aid money is not enough. If anything, it favors those who already have enough access to influence and power to initiate the formation of such groups. What is required is a structural shift in how we disseminate aid. Incentives are a good place to start. I'm generally somewhat skeptical of the merits of libertarian paternalism but this seems to be a good test case for wielding such soft influence.

Whether governments, institutions, or donors steer people toward collective action, if it yields better results it can only help the efficiency of, and in turn argument for more, foreign aid.