Conclusion
The purpose of this comment has not been to question the main point of Holcombe's paper. Unanimous legislative agreement, if it occurs, could be inefficient for the reasons put forth by Holcombe. The motivation for this comment is that Holcombe's explanation for the existence of legislative unanimity is not a compelling one since it begs an important question. That question is: If the cooperation exists to maintain a unanimous coalition, why does not the cooperation exist to maintain a less-than-unanimous coalition? Unless Holcombe can answer this question satisfactorily, his explanation for legislative unanimity is fundamentally flawed.
References
Crain, W.M., Leavens, D.R. and Tollison, R.D. (1986). Final voting in legislatures. American Economic Review 76 (4): 833–841.
Crain, W.M. (1988). The chameleon Congress. In G. Jones (Ed.), The imperial Congress. Washington: Heritage Foundation.
Holcombe, R.G. (1986). Non-optimal unanimous agreement. Public Choice 48 (3): 229–244.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, D.R. Less than unanimous agreement on the reason for unanimous agreement: Comment. Public Choice 62, 83–87 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00168017
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00168017