Public Choice

, Volume 143, Issue 3–4, pp 309–315 | Cite as

A Noble prize in practical politics: Elinor Ostrom

Article
  • 128 Downloads

Keywords

Rationality Collective action Collective choice Institutions 

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 (2nd ed.) New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Bates, R. H., de Figueiredo Jr., R. J. P., & Weingast, B. S. (1998). The politics of interpretation: rationality, culture, and transition. Politics and Society, 26, 603–642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chwe, M. S.-Y. (2001). Rational ritual: culture, coordination, and common knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row. Google Scholar
  5. Elster, J. (2007). Explaining social behavior: more nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Fearon, J., & Wendt, A. (2003). Rationalism v. constructivism: a skeptical view. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  7. Ferejohn, J. (1991). Rationality and interpretation: parliamentary elections in early stuart England. In K. Monroe (Ed.), The economic approach to politics (pp. 279–305). New York: Harper-Collins. Google Scholar
  8. Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. A. (2006). Skating on thin ice: cracks in the public choice foundation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18(3), 235–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green, D. P., & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory: a critique of applications in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Green, D. P., & Shapiro, I. (1996). Pathologies revisited: reflections on our critics. In J. Friedman (Ed.) The rational choice controversy (pp. 235–276). New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern political economy: lessons from medieval trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Hausman, D. M. (1992). The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Katznelson, I., & Weingast, B. R. (Eds.) (2005). Preferences and situations. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Google Scholar
  14. Lichbach, M. I. (1995). The Rebel’s dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  15. Lichbach, M. I. (1996). The Cooperator’s dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  16. Lichbach, M. I. (2003). Is rational choice theory all of social science? Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  17. Lichbach, M. I. (2009). Thinking and working in the midst of things: discovery, explanation, and evidence in comparative politics. In M. I. Lichbach & A. S. Zuckerman (Eds.), Comparative politics: rationality, culture, and structure (pp. 18–71, 2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  18. McKelvey, R. D. (1976). Intransitivities in multi-dimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory, 12, 472–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moon, J. D. (1975). The logic of political inquiry: a synthesis of opposed perspectives. In F. I. Greenstein, & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science : Vol. I. Political science scope and theory. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  20. Olson Jr., M. (1971). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  22. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Ostrom, E. (2007). Collective action theory. In C. Boix, & S. Stokes (Eds.), Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  25. Popper, K. J. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Google Scholar
  26. Przeworski, A. (2007). Is the science of comparative politics possible? In C. Boix, & S. C. Stokes (Eds.), Oxford handbook of comparative politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  27. W. H. Riker (1963). The theory of political coalitions. New York: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Riker, W. H. (1980). Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. American Political Science Review, 76, 753–766. Google Scholar
  29. Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: a confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco: Freeman. Google Scholar
  30. Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1973). An introduction to positive political theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  31. Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Enlarged ed. Google Scholar
  32. Schotter, A., & Schwödiauer, G. (1980). Economics and the theory of games: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 18, 479–527. Google Scholar
  33. Shepsle, K. (1979). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 27–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior (3rd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations