Exit, voice and loyalty

15 important questions on Exit, voice and loyalty

What are, according to Hirschmann, the three appropriate responses to a decline and thus satisfaction in a government/firm?

- exit
- voice
- loyalty

What happens if you exit a firm, but it is part of an oligopoly? (it can also apply to parties, see the comment that Baudet made about the party cartel)

It has no effect, because exit just moves people around. There is no incentive to improve, because it will cost the firms a lot of money but they do not profit (much) from it

Why did the emigration from Africa have disastrous effects according to Hirschmann?

- exit of human capital
- exit of financial capital
- exit of innovative potential
- personal gain is dubious
  • Higher grades + faster learning
  • Never study anything twice
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Discover Study Smart

What is voice, when it is used as a response to decline in a country/firm?

It protests continuing communication in a very large category; from protests to arts

What is the essence of voice?

Suspend belief in the company/system and it is calculated nihilism

What is loyalty as a respons to decline in a firm/country about?

Doing nothing, being quiet and die disappointed. It is usually the initial response to dissatisfaction, because action costs something

What is the essence of loyalty?

- fatalism -> reject decline, but see no alternative
- fanaticism -> deny that there is a decline and fight until the end

What are some comments to these responses that Hirschmann formulated as response to a decline?

- it is a mantra and may be incomplete
- it is an imperfect translation of the 3 basic responses of humans in biology from a threat from outside
- not to be taken literally
- vague passages that call for further research

What is civil disobedience according to Thoreau (1817-1862)?

That you have a duty to resist when the government does not serve at the pleasure of the citizens. It obliges citizens to actively resist

What is John Rawls' liberal view of disobedience?

Breaking one law, without breaking all laws. To reinforce a fundamentally just systems, but go against a specific unjust point

What are two of the conditions according to Rawls that allow civil disobedience?

- publicity -> you have to show your face
- accepting punishment -> you accept the system as it is, because you do not go against the entire system

What justifies civil disobedience according to Rawls?

- never personal disagreement
- never majoritarianism
- not even the injustice of a particular law
always only the perversion of a fair and just system

What implies Civil disobedience?

- try all legal routes first
- check if it is a matter of conscience rather than interest
- proportional response
- publicity not anonymity
- accept liability and punishment

Why is Rawls' view of civil disobedience limited?

He writes about how it will go about in a just society and not about how it will work in a totalitarian regime or what to think about a civil war

What are some comments on Rawls' view of civil disobedience?

- it is a matter of conscience
- the right not the good justifies CD
- politics vs the political-agonism from Schmitt, Lefort and Freund
- and include more reasonable ideas -> Mouffe, Laclau and Agonism

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo