Advertisement

Public Choice: An Introduction

  • Dennis C. Mueller

Abstract

Public Choice has been defined as the application of the methodology of economics to the study of politics. This definition suggests that public choice is an inherently interdisciplinary field, and so it is. Depending upon which person one selects as making the pioneering contribution to public choice, it came into existence either in the late 18th century as an offshoot of mathematics, or in the late 1940s as an offshoot of economics. The case for the earlier date rests on the existence of publications by two French mathematicians, Jean-Charles de Borda (1781) and the Marquis de Condorcet (1785). Condorcet was the first person, as far as we know, to discover the problem of cycling, the possibility when using the simple majority rule that an alternative x can lose to y in a vote between the two, y can lose to another alternative z, but z will also lose to x. The existence of such a possibility obviously raises the issue of how a community can decide among these three alternatives, when a cycle exists, and what the normative justification for any choice made will be. No cycle exists, of course, if some alternative, say y, can defeat both x and z. The literature has commemorated Condorcet’s contribution by naming such an issue like y a Condorcet winner. A vast number of papers and books have analyzed both the normative and positive implications of the existence of cycles.

Keywords

Public Good Public Choice Vote Rule Condorcet Winner American Political Science Review 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alt, James E. (1999). “Obituary: thoughts on Mancur Olson’s contribution to political science.” Public Choice, 98: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1950). “A difficulty in the concept of social welfare.” Journal of Political Economy, 58: 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Black, Duncan (1948a). “On the rationale of group decision making.” Journal of Political Economy, 56: 23–34; reprinted in K.J. Arrow and T. Scitovsky (eds.) (1969) 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, Duncan (1948b). “The decisions of a committee using a special majority.” Econometrica, 16: 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, Duncan (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Borda, Jean-Charles de (1781). Memoire sur les Elections au Scrutin. Paris: Histoire de l’Academie Royale des Sciences.Google Scholar
  8. Bowen, Howard R. (1943). “The interpretation of voting in the allocation of economic resources.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 58: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breton, Albert. (1996). Competitive Governments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, James M. (1949). “The pure theory of government finance: a suggested approach.” Journal of Political Economy, 57: 496–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchanan, James M. and Gordon Tullock (1962). The Calculus of Consent. Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, Edward H. (1971). “Multipart pricing of public goods.” Public Choice, 11: 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Condorcet, Marquis de (1785). Essai sur l’Application de L’Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluraliste des Voix. Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Coughlin, Peter and Shmuel Nitzan (1981a) “Electoral outcomes with probabilistic voting and nash social welfare maxima.” Journal of Public Economics, 15: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coughlin, Peter and Shmuel Nitzan (1981b) “Directional and local electoral equilibria with probabilistic voting.” Journal of Economic Theory, 24: 226–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dodgson, Charles L. (1876). A Method of Taking Votes on More than Two Issues; reprinted in Black (ed.) (1958) 224–234.Google Scholar
  17. Downs, Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  18. Drazen, Allan (2000). Political Economy in Macroeconomics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Frey, Bruno S. and Friedrich Schneider (1978a) “An empirical study of politico-economic interaction in the U.S..” Review of Economics and Statistics, 60: 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frey, Bruno S. and Friedrich Schneider (1978b). “A politico-economic model of the United Kingdom.” Economic Journal, 88: 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frohlich, Norman and Joe A. Oppenheimer (1992). Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Frohlich, Norman, Joe A. Oppenheimer, and Cheryl L. Eavey (1987). “Laboratory results on Rawls’s distributive justice.” British Journal of Political Science, 17: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibbard, Allan (1977). “Manipulation of schemes that combine voting with chance.” Econometrica, 45: 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Groves, Theodore (1973). “Incentives in teams.” Econometrica, 41: 617–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Groves, Theodore and John J. Ledyard (1977). “Optimal allocation of public goods: a solution to the ‘free rider’ problem.” Econometrica, 45: 783–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr. (1977). “Political parties and macroeconomic policy.” American Political Science Review, 71: 1467–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr. (1987). The Political Economy of Industrial Democracies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hoffman, Elizabeth (1997). “Public choice experiments,” in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 415–426.Google Scholar
  29. Hoffman, Elizabeth and Matthew L. Spitzer (1982). “The coase theorem: some experimental tests.” Journal of Law and Economics, 25: 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hotelling, Harold (1929). “Stability in competition.” Economic Journal, 39: 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hylland, Aanund and Richard Zeckhauser (1970). “A mechanism for selecting public goods when preferences must be elicited.” KSG Discussion Paper 70D, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  32. Kramer, Gerald H. (1971). “Short run fluctuations in U.S. voting behavior, 1896–1964.” American Political Science Review, 65: 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krueger, Anne O. (1974). “The political economy of the rent-seeking society.” American Economic Review, 64(3): 291–303; reprinted in J.M. Buchanan, R.D. Tollison, and G. Tullock (eds.) (1980) 51–70.Google Scholar
  34. Laver, Michael and Norman Schofield (1990). Multiparty Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ledyard, John O. (1984). “The pure theory of large two-candidate elections.” Public Choice, 44(1): 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ledyard, John O. (1995). “Public goods: a survey of experimental research,” in J.H. Kagel and A.E. Roth (eds.) The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 111–251.Google Scholar
  37. MacRae, C. Duncan (1977). “A political model of the business cycle.” Journal of Political Economy, 85: 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Magee, Stephen P. (1997). “Endogenous protection: the empirical evidence,” in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 526–561.Google Scholar
  39. Marwell, G. and Ames, R.E. (1979). “Experiments on the provision of public goods I: resources, interest, group size, and the free rider problem.” American Journal of Sociology, 84: 1335–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marwell, G. and Ames, R.E. (1980). “Experiments on the provision of public goods II: provision points, stakes, experience and the free rider problem.” American Journal of Sociology, 85: 926–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKelvey, Richard D. (1976). “Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control.” Journal of Economic Theory, 12: 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKelvey, Richard D. (1986). “Covering, dominance, and institution-free properties of social choice.” American Journal of Political Science, 30: 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mill, John Stuart. (1861). Considerations on Representative Government. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, Nicholas R. (1980). “A new solution set for tournaments and majority voting: further graph-theoretical approaches to the theory of voting.” American Journal of Political Science, 24: 68–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miller, Nicholas R. (1983). “The covering relation in tournaments: two corrections.” American Journal of Political Science, 27: 382–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moe, Terry M. (1997). “The positive theory of public bureaucracy,” in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 455–480.Google Scholar
  47. Mueller, Dennis C. (1978). “Voting by veto.” Journal of Public Economics, 10: 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mueller, Dennis C. (1984). “Voting by veto and majority rule.” in Horst Hanusch (ed.) Public Finance and the Quest for Efficiency. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, pp. 69–85.Google Scholar
  49. Mueller, Dennis C. (2003). Public Choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Müller, Wolfgang C. and Kaare Strøm (2000). “Coalition governance in Western Europe,” in W.C. Müller and K. Strøm (eds.) Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 559–592.Google Scholar
  51. Niskanen, William A. Jr. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  52. Nordhaus, William D. (1975). “The political business cycle.” Review of Economic Studies, 42: 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Olson, Mancur, Jr. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Ostrom, Elinor and James Walker (1997). “Neither markets nor states: linking transformation processes in collective action areas,” in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–72.Google Scholar
  55. Paldam, Martin (1997). “Political business cycles,” in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 342–370.Google Scholar
  56. Posner, Richard A. (1975). “The social costs of monopoly and regulation.” Journal of Political Economy. 83: 807–827; reprinted in J.M. Buchanan, R.D. Tollison, and G. Tullock (eds.) (1980) 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rawls, John A. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  58. Riker, William H. (1962). The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Riker, William H. (1982). Liberalism Against Populism. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  60. Samuelson, Paul A. (1954). “The pure theory of public expenditure.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 36: 386–389.Google Scholar
  61. Saari, Donald G. (1994). Geometry of Voting. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Satterthwaite, M.A. (1975). “Strategy-proofness and arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions.” Journal of Economic Theory, 10: 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schofield, Norman (1978). “Instability of simple dynamic games.” Review of Economic Studies, 45: 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schofield, Norman (1997). “Multiparty electoral politics,” in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–295.Google Scholar
  65. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd edn, 1950. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  66. Sen, Amartya (1970). “The impossibility of a paretian liberal.” Journal of Political Economy, 78: 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sen, Amartya (1996). “Rights: formulation and consequences.” Analyse & Kritik, 18: 153–170.Google Scholar
  68. Smith, Vernon L. (1979). “An experimental comparison of three public good decision mechanisms.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 81(2): 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taylor, Michael J. and Herman, V.M. (1971). “Party systems and government stability.” American Political Science Review, 65: 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tollison, Robert D. (1997). “Rent seeking,” in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 506–525.Google Scholar
  71. Tullock, Gordon. (1967). “The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies and theft.” Western Economic Journal, 5: 224–232; reprinted in Buchanan, Tollison and Tullock (eds.) (1980) 39–50.Google Scholar
  72. van Roozendaal, Peter (1990). “Centre parties and coalition formations: a game theoretic approach.” European Journal of Political Research, 18: 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Roozendaal, Peter (1992). “The effect of dominant and central parties on cabinet composition and durability.” Legal Studies Quarterly, 17: 5–36.Google Scholar
  74. van Roozendaal, Peter (1993). “Cabinets in the Netherlands (1918–1990): the importance of ‘dominant’ and ‘central’ parties.” European Journal of Political Research, 23: 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vickrey, William (1961). “Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders.” Journal of Finance, 16: 8–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Young, H. Peyton (1997). “Group choice and individual judgements,” in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 201–225.Google Scholar
  77. Wicksell, Knut (1896). “Ein neues Prinzip der gerechten Besteuerung.” Finanztheoretische Untersuchungen, Jena; translated as “A New Principle of Just Taxation,” 1958; reprinted in (1967) Richard A. Musgrave, and Alan T. Peacock (eds.) Classics in the Theory of Public Finance. London: Macmillan, pp. 72–118.Google Scholar
  78. Wintrobe, Ronald (1997). “Modern bureaucratic theory,” in D.C. Mueller (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 429–454.Google Scholar
  79. Wittman, Donald (1995). The Myth of Democratic Failure: Why Political Institutions are Efficient. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis C. Mueller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations