Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 137, Issue 3–4, pp 507–522 | Cite as

Economic choice, political decision, and the problem of limits

  • Michael C. MungerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Assesses the arguments for the use of market, or political, processes for making collective choices. The border between “what is mine” and “what is ours” is contested, but it is unguarded. Where should it lie? How would we know when it should be adjusted? I uncover an old paradox: A society can never use political means to guard against incursions across the border for political ends. Some other mechanism, such as constitutional or other extra-statutory rules, are required.

Keywords

Political economy Politics Market processes Risk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1st edition published by Wiley (1951). Google Scholar
  2. Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. (1993). Democracy and decision: the pure theory of electoral preference. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M. (1968). The demand and supply of public goods. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, J. M. (1977). The limits of liberty: between anarchy and leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. M., & Faith, R. (1980). Subjective elements in Rawlsian Agreement on distributional rules. Economic Inquiry, 18, 23–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, E. (1971). Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice, 11, 17–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, E. (1977). Some aspects of the demand revealing process. Public Choice, 29(2), 37–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, E. (1980). Demand revelation and the provision of public goods. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  11. Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demsetz, H. (1967). Towards a theory of property rights. The American Economic Review, 57, 347–359. Google Scholar
  13. Gibbard, A. (1973). Manipulation of voting schemes. Econometrica, 41, 587–602. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groves, T., & Ledyard, J. (1977). Some limitations of demand revealing processes. Public Choice, 29, 107–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardin, R. (1995). One for all: The logic of group conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Hayek, F. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35, 519–530. Google Scholar
  18. Hurwicz, L., & Walker, M. (1990). On the generic nonoptimality of dominant-strategy allocation mechanisms: A general theorem that includes pure exchange economies. Econometrica, 58, 683–704. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., & Schkade, D. (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 203–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kropotkin, P. (1955/1914). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Boston: Extending Horizons Books. Google Scholar
  21. Lindahl, E. (1958). Just taxation: A positive solution. In R. A. Musgrave & A. T. Peacock (Eds.), Classics in the Theory of Public Finance. New York: Macmillan; (Originally Die Gerechtigkeit der Besteuerung, 1999; German. Trans. by Elizabeth Henderson). Google Scholar
  22. Locke, J. (1690/1988). Two Treatises on Government. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1988 (1932/1844)) The meaning of human requirements. In The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844 and the communist manifesto. (Trans. by Martin Milligan), pp. 115–134. Google Scholar
  24. Munger, M. (2000). Five questions: An integrated research agenda for public choice. Public Choice, 103, 1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Riker, W. (1981). Liberalism Against Populism. Chicago: Waveland Press. Google Scholar
  27. Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism—a confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. Waveland Press. Google Scholar
  28. Satterthwaite, M. A. (1975). Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10, 187–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlapfer, F., Roschewitz, A., & Hanley, N. (2004). Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour. Ecological Economics, 51, 1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sen, A. (1987). On ethics and economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar
  31. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  32. Tideman, T. N., & Tullock, G. (1976). A new and superior process for making social choices. Journal of Political Economy, 84, 1145–1159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tideman, T. N., & Tullock, G. (1981). Coalitions under demand revealing. Public Choice, 36(2), 323–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tullock, G. (1977). Demand-revealing process, coalitions, and public good. Public Choice, 29(2), 103–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weingast, B. R. (1997). The political foundations of democracy and the rule of law. American Political Science Review, 91, 245–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weingast, B. R. (2005). Self-enforcing constitutions: with an application to democratic stability in America’s first century. (Internet manuscript). Stanford: Department of Political Science. http://polisci.stanford.edu/faculty/documents/weingast-self-enforcing%20constitutions.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations