The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 281–293 | Cite as

How Austrians can contribute to constitutional political economy (and why they should)

  • Andrew T. YoungEmail author


Will a society’s political agents provide good governance? An answer must be sought first and foremost at the constitutional level. While Austrians have made important contributions to constitutional political economy (CPE), they have often avoided interesting and important questions regarding today’s constitutional realities. This is particularly true when it comes to de jure constitutional design. Why do de jure constitutions matter? Can they be designed such that they are robust? When they are not robust, does constitutional drift lead to a better or worse governance environment? In discussing these questions, I attempt to point Austrian scholars towards some potentially fruitful CPE research avenues.


Constitutional political economy Constitutional drift Austrian economics Political catallaxy Robust political economy 

JEL codes

B53 H10 P00 P16 P48 



  1. Acemoglu, D. A. (2003). Why not a political Coase theorem? Social conflict, commitment, and politics. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(4), 620–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., & Bolton, P. (2003). Incomplete social contracts. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(1), 38–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert, R. (2014a). Constitutional disuse or desuetude: The case of article V. Boston University Law Review, 94(2014), 1029–1081.Google Scholar
  4. Albert, R. (2014b). Constitutional amendment by constitutional desuetude. American Journal of Comparative Law, 62(3), 641–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. (2003). Restoring the lost constitution: The presumption of liberty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berggren, N. (2014). The calculus of consent at fifity: Insights for liberalism. Independent Review, 18(3), 373–389.Google Scholar
  7. Bjørnskov, C., & Voigt, S. (2014). Constitutional verbosity and social trust. Public Choice, 161(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boettke, P., & Leeson, P. (2004a). An ‘Austrian’ perspective on public choice. In C. K. Rowley & F. Schneider (Eds.), The encyclopedia of public choice. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Boettke, P., & Leeson, P. (2004b). Liberalism, socialism, and robust political economy. Journal of Markets and Morality, 7(1), 99–111.Google Scholar
  10. Bologna Pavlik, J., & Young, A. T. (2019a). The legacy of representation in medieval Europe for incomes and institutions today. SSRN Working Paper. Google Scholar
  11. Bologna Pavlik, J., & Young, A. T. (2019b). Medieval European traditions in representation and state capacity today. SSRN Working Paper. Google Scholar
  12. Brennan, J. (2016). Against democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1985). The reason of rules: Constitutional political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Buchanan, J. M. (1987). Economics: Between predictive science and moral philosophy. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Buchanan, J. M. (1990). The domain of constitutional economics. Constitutional Political Economy, 1(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buchanan, J. M., & Congleton, R. D. (2003 [1998]). Politics by principle, not interest: Towards nondiscriminatory democracy. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  18. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buchanan, J. M., & Vanberg, V. (1989). Interests and theories in constitutional choice. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(1), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Caplan, B. (2007). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chiebub, J. A. (2006). Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coll, S. (2008). The origins and evolution of democracy: An exercise in history from a constitutional economic approach. Constitutional Political Economy, 19(4), 313–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Congleton, R. D. (2004). Generality and the efficiency of government decision making. In C. K. Rowley & F. Schneider (Eds.), The encyclopedia of public choice. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Congleton, R. D. (2007). From royal to parliamentary rule without revolution: The economics of constitutional exchange within divided governments. European Journal of Political Economy, 23, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Congleton, R. D. (2011). Perfecting parliament: Constitutional reform, liberalism, and the rise of Western democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. de Lara, Y. G., Greif, A., & Jha, S. (2008). The administrative foundations of self-enforcing constitutions. American Economic Review, 98(2), 105–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Devins, C., Koppl, R., Kauffman, S., & Felin, T. (2015). Against design. Arizona State Law Journal, 47(3), 609–681.Google Scholar
  28. Dove, J. A., & Young, A. T. (2019). US state constitutional entrenchment and default in the 19th century. Journal of Institutional Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  29. Eicher, T. S., García-Penalosa, & Kuenzel, D. J. (2018), Constitutional rules as determinants of social infrastructure. Journal of Macroeconomics, 57(#), 2018.Google Scholar
  30. Elkins, Z., Ginsburg, T., & Melton, J. (2009). The endurance of national constitutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the sirens. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  32. Flaherty, M. S. (1996). The most dangerous branch. Yale Law Journal, 105(7), 1725–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ginsburg, T. (2010). Constitutional specificity, unwritten understandings and constitutional agreement. In A. Sajo & R. Utz (Eds.), Constitutional topography: values and constitutions. Netherlands: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Ginsburg, T. (2013). Constitutions as contract, constitutions as charter. In D. Gallagan & M. Versteeg (Eds.), Social and political foundations of constitutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ginsburg, B. (2016). Presidential government. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ginsburg, T., & Melton, J. (2015). Does the constitutional amendment rule matter at all? Amendment cultures and the challenges of measuring amendment difficulty. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13(3), 686–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ginsburg, T., & Posner, E. A. (2010). Subconstitutionalism. Stanford Law Review, 62(6), 1583–1628.Google Scholar
  38. Greene, A. S. (1994). Checks and balances in an eta of presidential lawmaking. University of Chicago Law Review, 61(1), 123–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gwartney, J., Lawson, R. A., Hall, J. C., & Murphy, R. (2018). Economic freedom of the world: 2018 annual report. Vancouver: Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
  40. Hadfield, G. K., & Weingast, B. R. (2014). Constitutions as coordinating devices. In S. Galliani & I. Sened (Eds.), Institutions, property rights, and economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hardin, R. (1989). Wy a constitution? In B. Grofman & D. Wittman (Eds.), The federalist papers and the new institutionalism. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hall, J. C., & Lawson, R. A. (2014). Economic freedom of the world: An accounting of the literature. Contemporary Economic Policy, 32(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.Google Scholar
  44. Hayek, F. A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Holcombe, R. G. (2018). Checks and balances: Enforcing constitutional constraints. Economies, 6(4), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holmes, S. (1995). Passions and constraint: On the theory of liberal democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kirzner, I. (1985). Discovery and the capitalist process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kogelmann, B., & Salter, A. W. (2019). Rawlsian originalism. Jurisprudence, forthcoming. Google Scholar
  49. Kydland, F. E., & Prescott, E. C. (1977). Rules rather than discretion: The inconsistency of optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy, 85(3), 473–491.Google Scholar
  50. Leeson, P. T. (2007). An-arrgh-chy: The law and economics of pirate organization. Journal ofPolitical Economy, 115(6), 1049–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leeson, P. T. (2009). The invisible hook: The hidden economics of pirates. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leeson, P. T. (2011). Government, clubs, and constitutions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 80(2), 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Leeson, P. T., & Suarez, P. A. (2016). An economic analysis of Magana carta. International Review of Law and Economics, 47(S), 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leeson, P. T., & Subrick, J. R. (2006). Robust institutions. Review of Austrian Economics, 19(2–3), 107–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Levy, D. M. (2002). Robust institutions. Review of Austrian Economics, 15(2–3), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Linz, J. L. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes: Crisis, breakdown and reequilibration. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Minkler, L., & Prakash, N. (2017). The role of constitutions on poverty: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Comparative Economics, 45(#), 563-581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mittal, S., & Weingast, B. R. (2011). Self-enforcing constitutions: With an application to democratic stability in America’s first century. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 29(2), 278–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Montenegro, A. A. (1995). Constitutional design and economic performance. Constitutional Political Economy, 6(2), 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. North, D. C., & Weingast, B. R. (1989). Constitutions and commitment: The evolutions of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth century England. Journal of Economic History, 49(4), 803–832.Google Scholar
  61. Ordershook, P. C. (1992). Constitutional stability. Constitutional Political Economy, 3(2), 137–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pennington, M. (2011). Robust political economy: Classical liberalism and the future of public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  63. Pennington, M. (2015). Constitutional political economy and Austrian economics. In P. J. Boettke & C. J. Coyne (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Austrian economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Persson, T., Roland, G., & Tabellini, G. (1997). Separation of powers and political accountability. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1163–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Salter, A. W. (2015). Sovereignty as exchange of political property rights. Public Choice, 165(1), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Salter, A. W. (2017). Constitutional drift and political dysfunction: Underappreciated maladies of the political commons. Independent Review, 21(4), 569–585.Google Scholar
  67. Salter, A. W., & Furton, G. (2018). Emergent politics and constitutional drift: The fragility of procedural liberalism. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 7(1), 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Salter, A. W., & Young, A. T. (2018a). A theory of self-enforcing monetary constitutions with reference to the Suffolk system, 1825-1858. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 156(1), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Salter, A. W., & Young, A. T. (2018b). Medieval representative assemblies: Collective action and antecedents of limited government. Constitutional Political Economy, 29(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Salter, A. W., & Young, A. T. (2019). Polycentric sovereignty: The medieval constitution, governance quality, and the wealth of nations. Social Science Quarterly, 100(4), 1241–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schelling, T. C. (1984). Choice and consequence: Perspectives of an errant economist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Schlesinger Jr., A. M. (1973). The imperial presidency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  73. Skarbek, D. B. (2010). Putting the ‘con’ into constitutions: The economics of prison gangs. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 26(2), 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Skarbek, D. B. (2014). The social order of the underworld: How prison gangs govern theAmerican penal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tarabar, D., & Young, A. T. (2019). What Constitutes a Constitutional Amendment Culture? In What constitutes a constitutional amendment culture? SSRN Working Paper. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thomas, D. W., & Thomas, M. D. (2014). Entrepreneurship: Catallactic and constitutional perspectives. Review of Austrian Economics, 27(1), 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tsebelis, G. (2017). The time inconsistency of long constitutions: Evidence from the world. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 820–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tsebelis, G., & Nardi, D. J. (2016). A long constitution is a (positively) bad constitution: Evidence from OECD countries. British Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Versteeg, M., & Zackin, E. (2016). Constitutions unentrenched: Toward an alternative theory of constitutional design. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Voigt, S. (2011). Positive constitutional economics II – A survey of recent developments. Public Choice, 146(1), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wagner, R. E. (2016). Politics as a peculiar business: Insights from a theory of entangled political economy. Cheltenham and Northamphton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  83. Wagner, R. E. (2018). Gordon Tullock’s scholarly legacy: Extracting it from Buchanan’s shadow. Independent Review, 23(2), 187–207.Google Scholar
  84. Weingast, B. R. (2005). The constitutional dilemma of economic liberty. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wenzel, N. (2010). From contract to mental model: Constitutional culture as a fact of the social sciences. Review of Austrian Economics, 23(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Young, A. T. (2019). Sovereignty and commitment. Working Paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rawls College of BusinessTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations