Skip to main content

Political economy and the science of association: A suggested reconstruction of public choice through the alliance of the Vienna, Virginia, and Bloomington schools of political economy

The Review of Austrian Economics volume 27, pages 97–110 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

We argue that in order to answer the challenges that James Buchanan put to contemporary political economists, a reconstruction of public choice theory building on the work of Buchanan, F.A. Hayek and Vincent Ostrom must take place. Absent such a reconstruction, and the significant challenges that Buchanan raised will continue to go unmet.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Also see Boettke, “Fearing Freedom” (2013b) for a discussion of Buchanan’s challenge to contemporary classical liberals.

  2. See Buchanan and Tullock, The Calculus of Consent (1999[1962], 203).

  3. The concept of equilibrium, while essential in our analytical reasoning, often can become an intellectual straightjacket when utilized as it often is in modern neoclassical economics. The classical economists and early neoclassical economists of the Austrian tradition relied on a notion of equilibrium that was more akin to that used in evolutionary biology—a use that is consistent with novelty, change and adjustment. See David Simpson, The Rediscovery of Classical Economics (2013). See Richard Wagner, Mind, Society and Human Action (2010), and Boettke, Living Economics (2012a). The distinction between “mainline” and “mainstream” economics and political economy can also be usefully referenced here to distinguish between long standing ideas about the “invisible hand” in classical and early neoclassical thinkers, and more modern technical presentations of the “invisible hand” in the Arrow, Hahn, Debreu system of competitive general equilibrium.

  4. See the lecture by Buchanan on the Chicago School Old and New from 2010—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_atDse06r4. Buchanan is already citing Mises and Hayek on methodological and analytical points of agreement in the early 1950s, see, e.g., Buchanan (1954).

  5. Among the Austrian economists, only Murray Rothbard adopted that perspective and he explicitly rejected public choice analysis as ill-founded in Power and Market (1970) on the grounds that given the coercive nature of politics one cannot analyze politics as exchange.

  6. For a discussion of the issue of the endogenous formation of the framework see Boettke “Anarchism and Austrian Economics” (2012b) and Boettke “Entrepreneurship and the Entrepreneurial Market Process” (2013a).

  7. In the most recent NBER Reporter 2 (2013) for the political economy group, Alberto Alisina makes a similar point when he states that “in order to understand the world around us, we need to go beyond the assumption of “homo economicus” maximizing his welfare in isolation in an institution-free world. See http://www.nber.org/reporter/2013number2/2013no2.pdf.

  8. One of the intellectual difficulties here is that rather than a rejection of the analytical importance of the equilibrium construct to economic and political economy theorizing, the argument here is one of relative emphasis. We find particularly useful Richard Wagner’s (2010) discussion about foreground and background. His argument is that in standard neoclassical economics, the equilibrium conditions are in the foreground of the analysis, while the processes that give rise to that equilibrium state of affairs are in the background. In the reconstructed political economy we are discussing, the analytical focus is reversed with the process analysis taken the foreground and the equilibrium conditions as the background.

References

  • Boettke, P. J. (1987). Virginia political economy: A view from Vienna. Market Process, 5(2), 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettke, P. J. (2012a). Living economics: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettke, P. J. (2012b). Anarchism and Austrian economics. New Perspectives in Political Economy, 7(1), 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettke, P.J. (2013a). Entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial market process: Israel Kirzner and the two-levels of spontaneous order analysis. Review of Austrian Economics, forthcoming.

  • Boettke, P.J. (2013b). Fearing freedom: The intellectual and spiritual challenge to classical liberalism. The Independent Review, forthcoming.

  • Boettke, P. J., & Leeson, P. T. (2003). An ‘Austrian’ perspective on public choice. In C. Rowley (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public choice. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettke, P. J., & Lopez, E. J. (2002). Austrian economics and public choice. Review of Austrian Economics, 15(2/3), 111–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boettke, P. J., Coyne, C. J., & Leeson, P. T. (2007). Saving government failure theory from itself: Recasting political economy from an Austrian perspective. Constitutional Political Economy, 18, 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1954). Individual choice in voting and the market. The Journal of Political Economy, 62(4), 334–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1964). What should economists do? The Southern Economic Journal, 30(3), 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1969). Cost and choice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1979). What should economists do? Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (1991). The economics and the ethics of constitutional order. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J. M. (2005). Afraid to be free: Dependency as desideratum. Public Choice, 124, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J.M., & Thirlby, G.F. (eds.) (1981). L.S.E. Essays on cost. New York University Press.

  • Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1999[1962]). The calculus of consent. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, C. J. (2007). After war: The political economy of exporting democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1945). The road to serfdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and economic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1985). Capitlism and the discovery process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, M. (2004). Value and exchange. CATO Journal, 24(3), 303–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeson, P. T. (2007). Trading with bandits. Journal of Law and Economics, 50(2), 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mises, L. (1949). Human action: A treatise on economics. Yale: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books.

  • Ostrom, V. (1997). The meaning of democracy and the vulnerabilities of democracies: A response to Tocqueville’s challenge. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, M.N. (1970). Power and market: Government and the economy. The Institute for Humane Studies.

  • Simpson, D. (2013). The rediscovery of classical economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. (1992). Law or economics? Journal of Law & Economics, 35(2), 455–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringham, E. (2003). The extralegal development of securities trading in seventeenth century Amsterdam. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 43(2), 321–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tocqueville, A. (1966). Democracy in America?

  • Wagner, R. (2010). Mind, society and human action. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the insightful criticisms we received from Chris Coyne and Adam Martin and the research assistance of Liya Palagashvili. We also acknowledge the financial support of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the Mercatus Center. The usual caveat applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Peter J. Boettke

  2. Department of Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Nicholas A. Snow

Authors
  1. Peter J. Boettke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas A. Snow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J. Boettke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boettke, P.J., Snow, N.A. Political economy and the science of association: A suggested reconstruction of public choice through the alliance of the Vienna, Virginia, and Bloomington schools of political economy. Rev Austrian Econ 27, 97–110 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-013-0239-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-013-0239-3

Keywords

  • Austrian economics
  • Constitutional political economy
  • Spontaneous order

JEL codes

  • B53
  • D70