Talk:Exit, Voice, and Loyalty

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samantha Fratus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

So I've done a bunch of clean-up of the citations. Is there anything else to be done before we can take off the "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (November 2012)" part? Also does this really qualify as a stub anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scwalsh (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Epoku900.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

older comments

No. There are not two main concepts, exit and voice. Hirschman has THREE: exit voice and loyalty. As the title of his book suggests, all three are equally vital. Loyalty is as the third alternative is needed to explain many outcomes, for example in dictatorships. While the article does discuss political implications it does not present loyalty as having the equal billing Hirschman gives it. It is wrong to suggest that loyalty is an add on. Loyalty, like exit and voice, is itself an overarching category that can represent either positive or negative phenomena. It is the context that determines whether it is positive or negative. As voice can be plea so can it be threat. As exit can be helpless flight or dignified retreat so can it be callous abandonment. Loyalty embraces every form for acceptance of the situation, including submission, and, as the article admits, loyalty can be and often is a response to extremely negative phenomena such oppression and fraud, as well as an expression of genuine approval and acceptance. Loyalty is the third leg of the stool and without it Hirschman's theory cannot stand.¨¨¨¨

---

I don't agree with the above commenter: Loyalty is used by Hirschman to support his other two concepts. An example of this is the way in which voice is reinforced -and exit weakened- as a result of the loyalty the consumer has towards the company. As opposed to what the above commenter says, loyalty is not an option. It is an important component of the theory insofar as it gives more meaning to the other two. An interesting case of this is the efforts of firms who interact in a monopolistic competition framework; it is in the interest of each of them to increase the transportation cost understood as the price the consumer has to pay for switching to another firm. A high transportation can be understood also as higher loyalty -also externally created-. As a result of this before a reduction in quality a customer would prefer to use his voice rather than opt for exit. The important aspect here is that because of his loyalty the choice between voice and exit changes respect a perfect competition scenario.

jarevalob (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

--- Jarevalob makes an innovative claim that clearly reflects original research without sourced, substantiating information. A personal website would be a good place for trying to pair down hirschmann's conceptual work into categories that are eclectic, at best. Not here. A bit of research would indicate the relevant academic literature drawing from AOH uses all three concepts fruitfully and in great depth. Unless this fact is first clarified, it confuses the encyclopedic propose to argue that AOH is only using 2 claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.245.73 (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Jarevalob got it basically right. Both choice and voice are options for individuals as reactions to a perceived (and worrying) decrease in quality of an organization. Loyalty is not a such a reaction - but rather an alternative to a negative reaction, and as such in a different category from choice and voice. Loyalty is important in that it may explain why individuals in certain situations do not exercise either choice or voice, but loyalty is not an action itself, rather a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.82.65 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)