I. Spontaneous Order Theories
Unlike power theories (top-down), these are bottom-up
(predictability or coop emerges as by-product of individual
actions).
Hayek: Know the difference between Cosmos and Taxis.
Hayek discusses two types of order (focusing on predictability).
1) Cosmos (spontaneous) Eg, market, society. Superior for
efficiency, complexity.
2) Taxis (man-made). Eg, orgs, govt. Serves purpose of its
makers. Hayek against gov’t interference in market, but also
argues norms required to make spontaneous order beneficial
(ie, cooperative).
Axelrod I: How does cooperation emerge
among self-interested individuals?
Assumes rational egoism/zero-sum resources
Prisoner’s Dilemma:
• Models situation in which individual
incentives motivate action not in best interest
of the group, all worse off than if cooperated
(suboptimal equilibrium).
– b/c defection always best individual strategy
• Emergence of cooperation requires iterated
games.
Axelrod II: Live & let live strat. in trench warfare
• Spontaneous coop can develop even with
opposing interests
• Small immobile units = iterated PD game.
• Lessons of this study for PD game:
– Truce ↑ value of “mutual cooperation”
– ↑ retaliation for violation.
Smith & Critiques
• Adam Smith: Propensity to barter + desire for goods/$
 DoL  increased productivity (↑ wealth)  social
order b/c rising tide lifts all boats.
• Assumes positive-sum resources and rational egoism
• “Night watchman” (minimalist) state required to ensure
contracts, provide infrastructure
Critique of Spontaneous Order Theories
• (Polanyi Historically, laissez-faire capitalism 
regulation
• Unrealistic assumptions, esp. PD
• What about social structure?
II. Groups & Networks Theories
Simmel: Two types of social organization
• Concentric
– organic/“by birth”
– Social order by reinforcing conformity
– High social control
– Homogeneity
Family
Village
Clan
Simmel, cont’d
• Juxtaposed
– rational criteria;
– Modern (heterogeneous)
society
–  individuality, divides
loyalty,  group isolation

Granovetter
• Strength of Weak Ties lies in ability to
connect smaller groups together.
• Removal of bridges (weak ties connecting
groups) reduces probability of macro-level
social order
• Strong ties produce social order within
cliques, but these cliques can disrupt social
order across the larger group, as it did in
Boston’s Italian West End community
Gellner
• Talks about why people join groups (need
each other for safety & survival)
• Anarchy  cohesion/trust
– No state & pastoralism  formation of tribes for
defense.
• Also talks about ties across groups.
Ritualized betrayal  fluid/permeable
associations. Prevents one getting too
strong; groups self-police.
Tocqueville
• Equality feared as source of conflict
• In America, freedom of association
prevents conflict b/c voluntary assoc help
people internalize coop values.
• Thinks centralized gov’t makes men less
self-sufficient, less bonded together
Hechter’s Theory of Group Solidarity
• Assumes instrumental rationality: we join
groups for net benefit, for goods we can’t
produce efficiently ourselves
• Solidarity varies w/ social control
(monitoring and sanctioning capacity) &
dependence of individual on group.
Hechter, Friedman & Kanazawa
• Group Membership means benefits, but
also obligations (on time, conformity to
group norms, contributions, etc.)
• State “free-rides” on local social order,
esp. that produced by deviant groups.
• State will tolerate deviant groups unless
they threaten state power, or organized
groups.
Bases for Comparison
• Assumptions about human behavior
• Prescriptions regarding the best type of
government
• Arguments about what causes social order
(or conditions under which it emerges)
• Hobbes & Durkheim discussed in
comparison to theorists from 2nd part of
course
Social Change Theories
• Know in detail Weber’s and Marx’s
explanations for the emergence of
capitalism & consequences of capitalism
• Know the terms (e.g., ascetic
Protestantism, bourgeoisie, proletariat)