Advertisement

From Models to Experiments; James Buchanan and Charles Plott

  • Gil HerschEmail author
  • Daniel Houser
Chapter
Part of the Remaking Economics: Eminent Post-War Economists book series (EPWE)

Abstract

Buchanan’s work, and in particular The Calculus of Consent, which he wrote with Gordon Tullock, has been foundational in the field of public choice. One of his students, Charles Plott, became a pioneer with multiple seminal contributions in the field of experimental public choice. In this chapter we focus on Buchanan’s work on decision making under majority rule, and any influence it may have had on Plott. While Buchanan and Tullock address environments with single decisions, they focus much more on decision making under repeated votes, a topic they found of great interest. Plott’s seminal 1978 paper with Morris Fiorina, however, focuses on single decisions. It may seem puzzling, then, that Plott has often suggested Buchanan’s influence on his work. We offer a resolution to this puzzle.

References

  1. Bernholz, P. (1973). Logrolling, Arrow Paradox and Cyclical Majorities. Public Choice, 15, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, D. (1958). The Theory of Committee and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Black, D., & Newing, R. A. (1951). Committee Decisions with Complementary Valuations. London: William Hodge.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1999). The Calculus of Consent (Vol. 3). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (Original Work Published 1962).Google Scholar
  5. Casella, A., & Palfrey, T. (2016). An Experimental Study of Vote Trading, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  6. Casella, A., Llorente-Saguer, A., & Palfrey, T. R. (2012). Competitive Equilibrium in Markets for Votes. Journal of Political Economy, 120(4), 593–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casella, A., Palfrey, T., & Turban, S. (2014). Vote Trading with and Without Party Leaders. Journal of Public Economics, 112, 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. (1966). The Possibility of a Social Welfare Function. American Economic Review, 56, 1105–1122.Google Scholar
  9. Dekel, E., Jackson, M. O., & Wolinsky, A. (2008). Vote Buying: General Elections. Journal of Political Economy, 116(2), 351–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dekel, E., Jackson, M. O., & Wolinsky, A. (2009). Vote Buying: Legislatures and Lobbying. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4(2), 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferejohn, J. A. (1974). Sour Notes on the Theory of Vote Trading. Social Science Working Paper, California Institute of Technology, 41 (June, 1974).Google Scholar
  13. Fiorina, M. P., & Plott, C. R. (1978). Committee Decisicis Under Majority Rule: An Experimental Study. American Political Science Reivew, 72(2), 575–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Guala, F. (2005). The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haight, C. E., Gramajo, A. M., & Wenzel, N. G. (2011). The Calculus of Consent: 50th Anniversary Introduction. Laissez-Faire, 30(35), 83–85.Google Scholar
  17. Kay, J. (1997, January 3). A German Lesson. Financial Times.Google Scholar
  18. Levine, M. E., & Plott, C. R. (1977). Agenda Influence and Its Implications. Virginia Law Review, 63(4), 561–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lipsey, R. (1979). An Introduction to Positive Economics (5th ed.). London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  20. Mäki, U. (2005). Models Are Experiments, Experiments Are Models. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mckelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1980). Vote Trading: An Experimental Study. Public Choice, 35(2), 151–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1990). A Decade of Experimental Research on Spatial Models of Elections and Committees. In J. M. Enelow & M. J. Hinich (Eds.), Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting (pp. 99–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan, M. S. (2005). Experiments Versus Models: New Phenomena, Inference and Surprise. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ordeshook, P. C. (1997). The Spatial Analysis of Elections and Committees: Four Decades of Research. In D. Muelller (Ed.), Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook (pp. 247–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Palfrey, T. R. (2009). Laboratory Experiments in Political Economy. Annual Review of Political Science, 12(111), 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Plott, C. R. (1967). A Notion of Equilibrium Under Majority Rule. American Economic Review, 57(4), 787–806.Google Scholar
  27. Plott, C. R. (1979). The Application of Laboratory Experimental Methods in Public Choice. In C. S. Russell (Ed.), Collective Decision Making: Applications from Public Choice Theory. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Plott, C. R. (2001). Public Economics, Political Processes and Policy Applications (Vol. 1). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Plott, C. R. (2012). Personal Reflections on the Influence of Buchanan, Tullock, and “The Calculus of Consent”. Public Choice, 152(3/4), 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plott, C. R. (2014). Public Choice and the Development of Modern Laboratory Experimental Methods in Economics and Political Science. Constitutional Political Economy, 25(4), 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riker, W. H., & Brams, S. J. (1973). The Paradox of Vote Trading. American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1235–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Romer, T. (1988). Nobel Laureate on James Buchanan’s Contributions to Public Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(4), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Samuelson, P., & Nordhaus, W. D. (1985). Principles of Economics (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Santos, A. C. (2009). Behavioral Experiments: How and What Can We Learn About Human Behavior. Journal of Economic Methodology, 16(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory. The American Economic Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1976), pp. 274–279.Google Scholar
  36. Starmer, C. (1999). Experiments in Economics: Should We Trust the Dismal Scientists in White Coats? Journal of Economic Methodology, 6(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson, R. (1969). An Axiornatic Model of Logrolling. American Economic Review, 59, 331–341.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations