Talk:The Logic of Collective Action

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

All of this is actually totally wrong information (moved over from article page)

All of this is actually totally wrong information. I started off my essay with the info from this wikipage only to open up The Logic of Collective Action and see that all the information above is totally wrong. Someone needs to delete this asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.207 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 31 March 2009

I think it is a relatively good synopsis of the book. I am currently taking a Public Choice calss where this book is featured and this sounds like a good summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert cone (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selective incentives

This article reads "Hence, in the absence of collective incentives ...". From what is written here, I wonder if it should be "Hence, in the absence of SELECTIVE incentives ...", which completely reverses the point made and aligns it with the argumentation as presented. Someone should check. Or perhaps I am wrong in my interpretation, in which case the argumentation seems quite weak. (I have not read the book.)

Just wanted to note that this change is indeed correct. Thanks. Rl (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

One of the references is actually another wikipedia page (mancur olson) - I think this should be moved to the 'see also' section? Iamsorandom (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]