Exit,+Voice,+and+Loyalty

Title: Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
Submitted by:Alexander Ott

//Alternate Names//:

**Central Tenets:**

According to Hirschman (1970), all organizations, whether economic, political, or social, tend toward decay. That is, the individuals who make up organizations such as corporations, political parties, and schools are fallible and likely to err in their decisions and behaviors. These errors lead to a decline in the quality of what the organization provides its customers, members, or students. While human error and resultant decline in quality are inevitable occurrences, according to Hirschman, it is possible for an organization to correct errors, thus arresting and even reversing a decline in quality.

Hirschman (1970) focuses on two main feedback mechanisms—exit and voice—that may inform an organization of its errors, therefore giving the organization the opportunity to correct its behavior. Exit occurs when individuals withdraw from a relationship, such as when a customer decides not to buy a product from a specific corporation, a voter drops affiliation with a political party, or a parent withdraws her child from a public school. Voice occurs when individuals choose to complain, protest, agitate, or otherwise verbalize their discontent. Loyalty is a third factor that interacts with exit and voice, potentially affecting the power of each as a feedback mechanism.

**References:**

Barry, B. (1974). Review: Exit, voice, and loyalty. //British Journal of Political Science. 4//(1), 79–107.

Birch, A. H. (1975). Economic models in political science: The case of “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.” //British Journal of Political Science.// //5//(1), 69–82.

[|Clark], W. R., Golder, M., & Golder, S. (2006, August). //Power and politics: Exit, voice, and// //loyalty revisited.// Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Dowding, K., John, P., Mergoupis, T., & Vugt, M. (2000). Exit, voice and loyalty: Analytical and empirical developments. //European Journal of Political Research//. //37//, 469–495.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). //Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations,and states//. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hirschman, A. O. (1986). Exit and voice: An expanding sphere of influence. In A. O. Hirschman (Ed.), //Rival news of market society and other essays// (pp. 77–105). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Laver, M. (1976). Exit, voice, and loyalty revisited: The strategic production and consumption of public and private goods. //British Journal of Political Science.// //6//, 463–482.


 * References applying the framework: **

Elis, R. (2006). //Intradistrict inequality in American public schools: Exit, voice and strategy.// Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Garth-McCullough, R. (2007). More with less: Urban teacher experiences in a new small school. //Negro Educational Review//, //58//(3/4), 253–271.

[|Healy], M. (2007). School choice, brand loyalty and civic loyalty. //Journal of Philosophy of// //Education.// //41//(4), 743–756.

Labaree, D. F. (2000) No exit: public education as an inescapably public good. In L. Cuban & D. Shipps (Eds.), //Reconstructing the Common Good in Education// (pp. 110–129). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Wilson, D. (2009). Exit, voice and quality in the English education sector. //Social Policy &// //Administration. 43//(6), 571–584.