Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T02:39:30.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Relative deprivation in silico: agent-based models and causality in analytical sociology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Gianluca Manzo
Edited by
Pierre Demeulenaere
Gianluca Manzo
Affiliation:
University of Paris Sorbonne
Pierre Demeulenaere
Affiliation:
Université de Paris IV
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The concept of relative deprivation is one of the most frequently used notions in economics (see Clark et al. 2008), in social psychology (see Tyler et al. 1997: ch. 2; Walker and Smith 2001: ch. 1) and in sociology (see Cherkaoui 2001; Coleman 1990: ch. 8; Lundquist 2008). Despite its diffusion, formal analyses of the mechanisms generating rates and feelings of relative deprivation are far less common.

In sociology, the most notable exceptions are, on the one hand, Boudon's (1982: ch. 5; 1979: 52–6) analysis – later taken up by Kosaka (1986) and Yamaguchi (1998) – and, on the other, Burt's (1982: ch. 5, 191–8) contribution.

These analyses, however, have a different focus. The first group have the following characteristics:

  1. They are interested in the rates of relative deprivation.

  2. They tend to demonstrate that the relation between objective opportunity structure and proportion of dissatisfied actors can be both negative and positive.

  3. They implicitly refer to actors who compare themselves with a given group as a whole (global comparisons).

By contrast, Burt's model can be characterized as follows:

  1. It focuses on the individual feelings of deprivation.

  2. It does not address the question about the positive or negative nature of the relation between objective opportunity structure and the intensity of feelings of dissatisfaction.

  3. It takes into account comparisons between people who are embedded in social networks (local comparisons).

My aim here is to develop a unified theoretical framework which enables us to analyze formally the relation between these different aspects at the same time.

Type
Chapter
Information
Analytical Sociology and Social Mechanisms , pp. 266 - 308
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Axelrod, Robert. 1997. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Axtell, Robert. 2000. “Why agents? On the varied motivations for agent computing in the social sciences,” in Axtell, Robert (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Simulation: Applications, Models and Tools, Argonne, IL, Argonne National Laboratory, 3–24.Google Scholar
Barabasi, Albert-Laszlo and Réka, Albert. 1999. “Emergence of scaling in random networks,” Science 286(5439): 509–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Boudon, Raymond. 1979. “Generating models as a research strategy,” in Merton, Robert K., Coleman, James S. and Rossi, Peter H. (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research. New York: The Free Press, 51–64.Google Scholar
Boudon, Raymond 1982 [1977]. The Unintended Consequences of Social Action. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bruch, Elizabeth and Mare, Robert D.. 2006. “Neighborhood choice and neighborhood change,” American Journal of Sociology 112(3): 667–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, Mario. 2004. “How does it work? The search for explanatory mechanisms,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34(2): 260–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1982. Toward a Structural Theory of Action. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cederman, Lars-Erik. 2001. “Agent-based modelling in the political science,” Political Methodology 10(1): 16–22.Google Scholar
Cederman, Lars-Erik 2005. “Computational models of social forms: advancing generative process theory,” American Journal of Sociology 110(4): 864–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherkaoui, Mohamed. 2001. “Relative deprivation,” in The International Encyclopaedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences. London: Elsevier, 2002, 3522–6.Google Scholar
Cherkaoui, Mohamed 2005. Invisible Codes. Essays on Generative Mechanisms. Oxford: Bardwell Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Andrew, Frijters, Paul and Shields, Michael. 2008. “Relative income, happiness and utility: an explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles,” Journal of Economic Literature 46(1): 95–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, James S. 1990. The Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, David R. 1992. “Causality: some statistical aspects,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 155(2): 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosby, F.J. 1976. “A model of egoistical relative deprivation,” Psychological Review 83: 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J.A. 1959. “A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation,” Sociometry 22: 280–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, Émile. 1951 [1897]. Le suicide. Paris: PUF (here, English trans. John A. Spaulding and George Simpson, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1951).Google Scholar
Easterlin, Richard. 1973. “Does money buy happiness?” The Public Interest 3 (Winter): 3–10.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1999. Alchemies of the Mind: Rationality and the Emotions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon 2007. Explaining Social Behaviour: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Joshua. 2006. Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fararo, T.J. 1989. The Meaning of General Theoretical Sociology. Tradition and Formalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fararo, T.J. 2009. “Generativity,” in Cherkaoui, M. and Hamilton, P. (eds.), Boudon: a Life in Sociology. Oxford: Bardwell Press.Google Scholar
Ferber, J. 1999. Multi-Agent Systems. An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. London: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Gambetta, Diego. 1998. “Concatenations of mechanisms,” in Hedström, Peter and Swedberg, Richard (eds.), Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge University Press, 102–24.Google Scholar
Gartrell, David. 1987. “Network approaches to social evaluation,” Annual Review of Sociology 13: 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gartrell, David 2001. “The embeddedness of social comparison,” in Walker, Iain and Smith, Heather Jean (eds.), Relative Deprivation. Specification, Development and Integration. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. Nigel. 2007. Agent-Based Models. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Goldthorpe, J.H. 2001. “Causation, statistics, and sociology,” European Sociological Review 17(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurr, Ted Robert. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Harré, R. 1972. The Philosophies of Science. An Introductory Survey. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hedström, P. 2004. “Generative models and explanatory research: on the sociology of Aage B. Sørensen,” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 21: 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedström, P. 2005. Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedström, P. and Bearman, P.. 2009. “What is analytical sociology all about?” in Bearman, P. and Hedström, P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hedström, P. and Swedberg, R. (eds.) 1998. “Social mechanisms: an introductory essay,” in Hedström, P. and Swedberg, R. (eds.), Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Hedström, P. and Udéhn, L.. 2009. “Analytical sociology and theories of middle-range,” in Bearman, P. and Hedström, P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hedström, P. and Ylikoski, P.. 2010. “Causal mechanisms in the social sciences,” Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummon, Norman P. and Fararo, Thomas J.. 1995. “The emergence of computational sociology,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 20(2–3): 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Marco, Aless, Lilian Naia, Barton, Michael, Bergin, Sean and Lee, Allen. 2008. “Towards a community framework for agent-based modelling,” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 11(2).Google Scholar
Jasso, Guillemina. 2008. “A new unified theory of sociobehavioral forces,” European Sociological Review 24(4): 411–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosaka, Kenji. 1986. “A model of relative deprivation,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 12(1): 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1973. “Causation,” Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundquist, J.H. 2008. “Ethnic and gender satisfaction in the military: the effect of a meritocratic institution,” American Sociological Review 73: 477–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, P.K., Darden, L. and Craver, C.F.. 2000. “Thinking about mechanisms,” Philosophy of Science 67(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macy, Michael W. and Willer, Robert. 2002. “From factors to actors: computational sociology and agent-based modeling,” Annual Review of Sociology 28: 143–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macy, M.W. and Flache, A.. 2009. “Social dynamics from the bottom up: agent-based models of social interaction,” in Hedström, P. and Bearman, P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manzo, Gianluca. 2007a. “Variables, mechanisms and simulations: can the three methods be synthetized?” Revue française de sociologie 48, Supplement: 35–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzo, Gianluca 2007b. “Comment on Andrew Abbott,” Sociologica 2.Google Scholar
Manzo, Gianluca 2009a. La spirale des inégalités. Choix scolaires en France et en Italie au XXe siècle. Paris: Presses de l'Université Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Manzo, Gianluca 2009b. “Boudon's model of relative deprivation revisited,” in Cherkaoui, M. and Hamilton, P. (eds.), Raymond Boudon: a Life in Sociology. Oxford: Bardwell Press, vol. iii, part 3, ch. 46, 91–121.Google Scholar
Manzo, Gianluca 2010. “Analytical sociology and its discontents,” Archives Européennes de Sociology/European Journal of Sociology 51(1): 129–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, Ph., Beaufils, B. and Brandouy, O. (eds.) 2005. Agent-Based Methods in Finance, Game Theory and their Applications. Berlin: Springer.
Merton, Robert K. 1957. Social Structure and Social Theory, 2nd edn. London: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Miller, John H. and Scott Page, E.. 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems: an Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, S.L. 2005. On the Edge of Commitment: Educational Attainment and Race in the United States. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, S.L. and Winship, Ch.. 2007. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Methods and Principles for Social Research. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, James and Roese, Neal. 2002. “Relative deprivation and counterfactual thinking,” in Walker, Iain and Smith, Heather Jean (eds.), Relative Deprivation. Specification, Development and Integration. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, Thomas. 2002. “Summing up: relative deprivation as a key social psychological concept,” in Walker, Iain and Smith, Heather Jean (eds.), Relative Deprivation. Specification, Development and Integration. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pisati, M. 2007. “Unità della sociologia, unità della scienza,” Sociologica 1.Google Scholar
Pujol, Josep M., Andreas Flache, Jordi Delgado and Sanguesa, Ramon. 2005. “How can social networks ever become complex? Modelling the emergence of complex networks from local social exchanges,” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 8(4): 12.Google Scholar
Railsback, S.F., Lytinen, S.L. and Jackson, S.K.. 2006. “Agent-based simulation platforms: review and development recommendations,” Simulation 82: 609–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runciman, Walter Garrison. 1966. Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: a Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-century England. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sanders, Lena. 2007. “Agent models in urban geography,” in Amblard, Frédéric and Phan, Denis (eds.), Agent-Based Models and Simulation for Human and Social Sciences. Oxford: Bardwell Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, Robert Keith. 2003. “Artificial societies. Multiagent systems and the micro-macro link in sociological theory,” Sociological Methods and Research 31(3): 325–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. 1979. “The meaning of causal ordering,” in Merton, Robert K., Coleman, James S. and Rossi, Peter H. (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research. New York: The Free Press, 65–81.Google Scholar
Stonedahl, F. and Wilensky, U.. 2008. “NetLogo virus on a network model,” Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Stouffer, Samuel A., Suchman, Edward A., Devinney, Leland C., Star, Shirley and Williams, Robin M.. 1965 [1949]. The American Soldier. Vol. 1, Adjustment During Army Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tesfatsion, L. and Judd, K.L. (eds.) 2006. Handbook of Computational Economics: Agent-Based Computational Economics, vol. ii. North-Holland: Elsevier.
Tisue, S. and Wilensky, Uri. 2004a. “NetLogo: design and implementation of a multi-agent modeling environment,” Evanston, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Available at: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/papers.
Tisue, S. and Wilensky, Uri 2004b. “NetLogo: a simple environment for modeling complexity,” Evanston, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Available at: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/papers.
Tocqueville, Alexis. 1955 [1856]. L'ancien régime et la révolution. Paris: Gallimard (here, English trans. Stuart Gilbert, New York: Doubleday, 1955).Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., Boeckmann, Robert J., Smith, Heather Jean and Huo, Yuen J.. 1997. Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Walker, H. and Smith, J. (eds.) 2001. Relative Deprivation. Specification, Development and Integration. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, Uri. 1999. NetLogo. Evanston, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Available at: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo.
Wilensky, Uri 2005. “NetLogo preferential attachment model,” Evanston, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Available at: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/PreferentialAttachment.
Winship, Ch. and Morgan, S.L.. 1999. “The estimation of causal effects from observational data,” Annual Review of Sociology 25: 659–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. 2000. “What is a mechanism? A counterfactual account,” Philosophy of Science 69(3): S366–S377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfers, Justin and Stevenson, Betsey. 2008. “Economic growth and subjective well-being: reassessing the Easterlin paradox,” IZA Discussion Papers, no. 3645.
Yamaguchi, Kazuo. 1998. “Rational-choice theories of anticipatory socialization and anticipatory nonsocialization,” Rationality and Society 10: 163–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×