Public Choice

, Volume 120, Issue 1–2, pp 41–61 | Cite as

Does Academic Publishing Pass the Real Market Test?

  • Mark Thornton


The academic market test is dissected here into its componentdecision-making processes to establish a basis for comparingthe commercial market test that we know, with the one we seekto pass in academia. Important differences between the twomarkets exist, but the market test for academic publishingdoes pass muster and may surpass that of the commercialmarket. This provides an analytical foundation for resolvingissues of professional debate concerning who passes theacademic market test.


Public Finance Commercial Market Analytical Foundation Market Test Academic Market 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aldrich, J.H. (1983). A Downsian spatial model with party activism. American Political Science Review 77: 974–990.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J.H. and McGinnis, M.D. (1989). A model of party constraints on optimal candidate positions. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 12: 437–450.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J.M., Jr. and Stewart, C., III. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S.House elections. American Journal of Political Science 45: 136–159.Google Scholar
  4. Aranson, P.H. and Ordeshook, P.C. (1972). Spatial strategies for sequential elections. In R.G. Niemi and H.F. Weisberg (Eds.), Probability models of collective decision making.Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, L.M. (1991). Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: The Reagan defense buildup. American Political Science Review 85: 457–474.Google Scholar
  6. Bedford, M. (1990). Dod's parliamentary companion. Hurst Green, England: Dod's Parliamentary Companion Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Bochel, J. and Denver, D. (1983). Candidate selection in the Labour Party: What the selectors seek. British Journal of Political Science 13: 45–69.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, D. and Kavanagh, D. (1988). The British general election of 1987. New York: St.Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, D. and Kavanagh, D. (1992). The British general election of 1992. New York: St.Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cain, B.E., Ferejohn, J.A. and Fiorina, M.P. (1984). The constituency service basis of the personal vote for U.S. Representatives and British Members of Parliament. American Political Science Review 78: 110–125.Google Scholar
  11. Cain, B.E., Ferejohn, J.A. and Fiorina, M.P. (1987). The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Calcagno, P.T. and Jackson, J.D. (1998). Political Action Committee spending and Senate roll call voting. Public Choice 97: 569–585.Google Scholar
  13. Cherry, T.L. and Kroll, S. (2003). Crashing the party: An experimental investigation of strategic voting in primary elections. Public Choice 114: 387–420.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J.E. and Brunk, G.G. (1983). A dynamic test of the marginality hypothesis. Political Behavior 5: 293–307.Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, J.S. (1971). Internal processes governing party positions in elections. Public Choice 11: 35–60.Google Scholar
  16. Cowley, P. and Stuart, M. (1997). Sodomy, slaughter, Sunday shopping and seatbelts: Free votes in the House of Commons, 1979 to 1996. Party Politics 3: 141–152.Google Scholar
  17. Cox, G.W. and McCubbins, M.D. (1993). Legislative Leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cunningham, R.L. (1991). Legislating on human fertilization and embryology in the United Kingdom. Statute Law Review 12: 214–227.Google Scholar
  19. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  20. Epstein, L.D. (1960). British MPs and their local parties: The Suez cases. American Political Science Review 54: 374–390.Google Scholar
  21. Fiorina, M.P. (1974). Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies. Lexington: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
  22. Flynn, P. (1997). Commons knowledge: How to be a backbencher. Bridgend: Seren.Google Scholar
  23. Gaines, B.J. (1998). The impersonal vote? Constituency service and incumbency advantage in British elections,1950-92. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23: 167–195.Google Scholar
  24. Garner, R. and Kelly, R. (1998). British political parties today. Second edition. New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gerber, E.R. and Morton, R.B. (1998). Primary election systems and representation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 14: 304–324.Google Scholar
  26. Hibbing, J.R. and Marsh, D. (1987). Accounting for the voting patterns of BritishMPs on free votes. Legislative Studies Quarterly 12: 275–297.Google Scholar
  27. Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Huntington, S.P. (1950). A revised theory of American party politics. American Political Science Review 44: 669–677.Google Scholar
  29. Isaac, J. (1994). The politics of morality in the UK. Parliamentary Affairs 47: 175–189.Google Scholar
  30. Iversen, T. (1994). The logics of electoral politics: Spatial, directional, and mobilizational effects. Comparative Political Studies 27: 155–189.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, P. (1995). Members of Parliament and issues of conscience. In P. Jones(Ed.), Party, parliament and personality, 141–164. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Katz, J.N. and King, G. (1999). A statistical model for multiparty electoral data. American Political Science Review 93: 15–32.Google Scholar
  33. King, A. (1981). The rise of the career politician in Britain-and its consequences. British Journal of Political Science 11: 249–285.Google Scholar
  34. Krehbiel, K. and Rivers, D. (1988). The analysis of committee power: An application to Senate voting on theminimum wage. American Journal of Political Science 32: 1151–1174.Google Scholar
  35. Kuklinski, J.H. (1977). District competitiveness and legislative roll-call behavior: A reassessment of the marginality hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 21: 627–638.Google Scholar
  36. Marsh, D. and Chambers, J. (1981). Abortion politics. London: Junction Books.Google Scholar
  37. Marsh, D. and Read, M. (1988). Private members' bills. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Millns, S. and Sheldon, S. (1998). Abortion. In P. Cowley (Ed.), Conscience and Parliament, 6–23. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  39. Montgomery, J. (1991). Rights, restraints and pragmatism: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990. Modern Law Review 54: 524–534.Google Scholar
  40. Morgan, D. and Lee, R.G. (1991). Blackstone's guide to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. London: Blackstone Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mullin, C. and Atkins, C. (1981). How to select or reselect your MP. Second edition. London: Campaign for Labour Party Democracy.Google Scholar
  42. Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J. (1995). Political recruitment: Gender, race and class in theBritish Parliament. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Norton, P. and Wood, D.M. (1993). Back from Westminster: British Members of Parliament and their constituents. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  44. Pattie, C., Fieldhouse, E. and Johnston, R.J. (1994). The price of conscience: The electoral correlates and consequences of free votes and rebellions in the British House of Commons,1987-92. British Journal of Political Science 24: 359–380.Google Scholar
  45. Roth, A. (1988). Parliamentary profiles, Volume I, A-D. London: Parliamentary Profiles.Google Scholar
  46. Roth, A. (1989). Parliamentary profiles, Volume II, E-K. London: Parliamentary Profiles.Google Scholar
  47. Roth, A. (1990). Parliamentary profiles, Volume III, L-R. London: Parliamentary Profiles.Google Scholar
  48. Roth, A. (1991). Parliamentary profiles, Volume IV, S-Z. London: Parliamentary Profiles.Google Scholar
  49. Seyd, P. and Whiteley, P. (1992). Labour's grass roots: The politics of party membership. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stewart, M.B. (1983). On least squares estimation when the dependent variable is grouped. Review of Economic Studies 50: 737–753.Google Scholar
  51. Sullivan, J.L. and Uslaner, E.M. (1978). Congressional behavior and electoral marginality. American Journal of Political Science22: 536–553.Google Scholar
  52. Tsebelis, G. (1990). Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley: University of California Pres.Google Scholar
  53. Wald, K.D. (1984). Virtues become vices? The decline of the textbook party system. In D.T. Studlar and J.L.Waltman (Eds.), Dilemmas of change in British politics, 69–101. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press.Google Scholar
  54. Whiteley, P.F. and Seyd, P. (1994). Local party campaigning and electoral mobilization in Britain. Journal of Politics 56: 242–252.Google Scholar
  55. Whiteley, P.F. and Seyd, P. (1999). Discipline in the British Conservative Party: The attitudes of party activists toward the role of their Members of Parliament. In S. Bowler, D.M.Farrell and R.S. Katz (Eds.), Party discipline and parliamentary government, 53–71. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Whiteley, P., Seyd, P. and Richardson, J. (1994). True blues: The politics of Conservative Party membership. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wintour, P. (1990). Liberal law emerges from voting maze on abortion. The Guardian 26April: 6.Google Scholar
  58. Wittman, D. (1977). Candidates with policy preferences: A dynamic model. Journal of Economic Theory 14: 180–189.Google Scholar
  59. Wittman, D. (1983). Candidate motivation: A synthesis of alternative theories. American Political Science Review 77: 142–157.Google Scholar
  60. Wittman, D. (1990). Spatial strategies when candidates have policy preferences. In J.M. Enelow and M.J. Hinich (Eds.), Advances in the spatial theory of voting, 66–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Thornton
    • 1
  1. 1.Ludwig von Mises InstituteAuburnU.S.A

Personalised recommendations