Is Voting Rational or Instrumental?

Chapter

Abstract

A fully rational choice approach to politics does not closely resemble modern models of voting behavior that purport to be applications of the economists analysis of rationality to the political sector. For these models do not build voting choices on the fragility of preferences about how to vote, which we show to be a basic implication of the voters paradox. Building a simple model on the fragility of preferences about how to vote delivers an number of different and realistic implications for the demand for public policies and political candidates, the supply of public policies and political candidates, and, ultimately, the determinants of public policy. The model explains why so many studies have found voters not voting in their (narrowly defined) self-interest, why minorities are not exploited under majoritarian voting, why interest groups have an important influence on public policy, why public decisions are so weakly correlated with voting rules, and why conformity is more common in political than private life.

References

  1. Aldrich JH (1993) Rational choice and turnout. Am J Polit Sci 37(1):246–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker GS (1983) A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Q J Econ 98(3):371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker GS (1985) Public policies, pressure groups, and dead weight costs. J Public Econ 28(3):329–347Google Scholar
  4. Becker GS, Mulligan CB (2003) Deadweight costs and the size of government\(*\). J Law Econ 46(2):293–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benabou R (1996) Inequality and growth. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1996, vol 11. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 11–92Google Scholar
  6. Brennan G, Hamlin A (1998) Expressive voting and electoral equilibrium. Public Choice 95(1–2):149–175Google Scholar
  7. Brennan G, Lomasky L (1983) Institutional aspects of merit goods analysis. FinanzArchiv 4:183–206Google Scholar
  8. Caplan B (2001) Rational ignorance versus rational irrationality. Kyklos 54(1):3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Citrin J, Green DP (1990) The self-interest motive in american public opinion. Res Micropolitics 3(1):1–28Google Scholar
  10. Cox GW, Munger MC (1989) Closeness, expenditures, and turnout in the 1982 US house elections. Am Polit Sci Rev 83(01):217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs A (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Easterly W, Rebelo S (1993) Fiscal policy and economic growth. J Monetary Econ 32(3):417–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackman RW (1975) Politics and social equality: a comparative analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindert PH (1994) The rise of social spending, 1880–1930. Explor Econ Hist 31(1):1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Matsusaka JG, Palda F (1993) The Downsian voter meets the ecological fallacy. Public Choice 77(4):855–878Google Scholar
  16. Meltzer AH, Richard SF (1981) A rational theory of the size of government. J Polit Econ 89(5):914–927Google Scholar
  17. Mulligan CB, Sala-i Martin X (1999) Gerontocracy, retirement, and social security. NBER Working Paper (w7117)Google Scholar
  18. Myerson RB (1995) Analysis of democratic institutions: structure, conduct and performance. J Econ Perspect 9(1):77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olson M (1971) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Pampel FC, Williamson JB (1989) Age, class, politics, and the welfare state. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peltzman S (1976) Toward a more general theory of regulation. J Law Econ 19(2):211–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peltzman S (1980) The growth of government. J Law Econ 23(2):209–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Persson T, Tabellini G (1999) The size and scope of government: comparative politics with rational politicians. Eur Econ Rev 43(4):699–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schumpeter JA (1942) Socialism, capitalism and democracy. Harper and Brothers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Sears DO, Funk CL (1991) The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 24(1):1–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sears DO, Hensler CP, Speer LK (1979) Whites’ opposition to busing: self-interest or symbolic politics? Am Polit Sci Rev 73(2):369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wittman DA (1995) The myth of democratic failure: why political institutions are efficient. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations