Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 152, Issue 3–4, pp 329–332 | Cite as

James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, and The Calculus

  • Dennis C. Mueller
Article
  • 286 Downloads

The Calculus of Consent (Buchanan and Tullock 1962) is one among a handful of contributions to public choice that can truly be called a classic. It was one of the building blocks laying the foundation for what would become an immense research program falling under the heading of public choice.

I can identify four lasting contributions to the public choice literature from The Calculus. The first would be the analysis of the optimal voting rule (Buchanan and Tullock 1962: 63–91). Buchanan and Tullock addressed the problem of choosing an optimal voting rule by introducing two categories of costs associated with collective actions. Decision-making costs are the time and effort required to reach a collective decision; they are assumed to rise as the majority required for passage expands. The external costs of collective decision-makingare the expected losses to a person on the losing end of a collective decision made using any voting rule other than unanimous consent. Those costs fall as...

Keywords

Public Choice Nobel Prize Vote Rule Constitutional Rule Rent Seek 
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.

References

  1. Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values (Rev. ed. 1963). New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  2. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1980). The power to tax: analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1985). The reason of rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M. (1975). The limits of liberty: between anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, J. M. (1980). Rent seeking and profit seeking. In J. M. Buchanan, R. D. Tollison & G. Tullock (Eds.), Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society (pp. 3–15). College Station: Texas A&M Press. Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. M., & Congleton, R. (1998). Politics by principle, not interest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  8. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row. Google Scholar
  9. Mueller, D. C. (1997). Constitutional public choice. In D. C. Mueller (Ed.), Perspectives on public choice (pp. 124–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rawls, J. A. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  12. Tideman, T. N., & Tullock, G. (1976). A new and superior process for making social choices. Journal of Political Economy, 84, 1145–1159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tullock, G. (1959). Some problems of majority voting. Journal of Political Economy, 67, 571–579. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tullock, G. (1967a). Toward a mathematics of politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar
  15. Tullock, G. (1967b). The general irrelevance of the general impossibility theorem. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81, 256–270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tullock, G. (1967c). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies and theft. Western Economic Journal, 5, 224–232. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations