Advertisement

The Political Economy of Swarming in Honeybees: Voting-with-the-Wings, Decision-Making Costs, and the Unanimity Rule

  • Janet T. Landa

Sociobiology has attracted a great deal of attention in the last decade or so. However, according to biologist Michael Ghiselin, the sociobiological approach has its limitations as it tries to explain all behavior including altruism, in terms of genetics. As Ghiselin puts it: ‘Genes, of course, occur in all organisms, but it is the economic forces that really explain what organisms do.’2 A ‘bioeconomic’ approach, incorporating cost- benefit calculations would better explain biological forms of organization.3 The bioeconomic approach has been used by Becker (1981), Ghiselin (1978), Hirshleifer (1978, 1982), Tullock (1978), and Wilson (1978) in their work, and will also be used in this paper. The paper will explain the various aspects of the political economy of swarming in honeybees, focusing especially on the bees’ collective choice of a new permanent nest site by the unanimous voting rule. The economic analysis draws on the work of Arrow (1974) on organizations, Buchanan and Tullock (1962) on the choice of Pareto-optimal voting rule and Schelling (1978) on critical mass phenomena. The paper will describe aspects of the political economy of honeybee swarming in Section 1. Section 2 uses economic analysis to explain various aspects of swarming in honeybees. Section 3 provides a conclusion and suggests an extension of the line of research in this paper.

Keywords

Political Economy Public Choice Nest Site Vote Rule External Cost 
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. Arrow, K.J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K.J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G. (1981). Families in nonhuman species. In G. Becker (Ed.), A treatise on the family. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, J. (1964). Rationality: An essay toward an analysis. London: Routledge and Paul.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J.M. and Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, J. and Landa, J.T. (1983). The economics of symbols, clan names and religion. Journal of Legal Studies 12: 135-156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  10. Easterbrook, F.H. and Fischel, D.R. (1983). Voting in corporate law. Journal of Law Economics 26: 395-427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Free, J.B. (1977). The social organization of honeybees. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  12. Ghiselin, M.T. (1978). The economy of the body. American Economic Review 68: 233-237.Google Scholar
  13. Ghiselin, M.T. (1982). General discussion: Evolution and human behavior. In P. Rubin (Ed.), Research in law and economics 4: 143.Google Scholar
  14. Grofman, B. and Landa, J.T. (1983). The development of trading networks among spatially separated traders as a process of proto-coalition formation: The Kula trade. Social Networks 5: 347-365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirshleifer, J. (1978). Natural economy versus political economy. Journal of Social and Biological Structure 1: 319-337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirshleifer, J. (1982). Evolutionary models in economics and law: Cooperation versus conflict strategies. In P. Rubin (Ed.), Research in Law and Economics 4: 1-60.Google Scholar
  18. Landa, J.T. (1981). A theory of the ethnically homogeneous middleman group: An institutional alternative to contract law. Journal of Legal Studies 10: 349-362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Landa, J.T., and Wallis, A. (1985). The socio-economic organization of honeybees: The new law and economics approach to sociobiology. Paper presented at the Public Choice Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Feb. 21-23.Google Scholar
  20. Lindauer, M. (1961). Communication among social bees. Cambridge: Harvard Press.Google Scholar
  21. Michener, C.D. (1974). The social behaviour of the bees. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mueller, D. (1979). Public choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Oster, G.F. and Wilson, E.O. (1978). Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton: Princeton Press.Google Scholar
  24. Samuelson, P.A. (1985). Modes of thought in economics and biology. American Economic Review 75: 166-172 (Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association).Google Scholar
  25. Schelling, T.C. (1978). Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  26. Seeley, T.D. (1982). How honeybees find a home. Scientific American 247: 158-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seeley, T.D., Visscher, P.K., and Passino, K.M. (2006). Group decision-making in honey bee swarms. American Scientist 94: 220-229Google Scholar
  28. Shaw, E. (1978). Schooling fishes. American Scientist 66: 166-175.Google Scholar
  29. Tiebout, C.M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 64: 416-424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trivers, R.L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tullock, G. (1978). Altruism, malice, and public goods. Journal of Social and Biological Structure 1: 3-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. von Frisch, K. (1967). The dance language and orientation of bees. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wilson, E.O. (1971). The insect societies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wilson, E.O. (1978). The ergonomics of caste in the social insects. The American Economic Review 68: 25-35.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, E.O. (1985). The sociogenesis of insect colonies. Science 228: 1489-1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet T. Landa

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations