Abstract
In the ten years that have passed since Schumpeter published these words ridiculing James Mill’s Essay on Government, an extensive literature has appeared that attempts to do the very thing that Schumpeter said could not be done.2 This literature, the work of economists for the most part, applies an “economic approach” to the study of politics and government and aims to bring both “economic” and “political” phenomena within the compass of a “general equilibrium theory.”3
Keywords
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.
Now, by virtue of its very nature, this utilitarian system is incapable of taking account of political life and of the way in which states, governments, parties and bureaucracies actually work. We have seen that its fundamental preconceptions do little harm in fields such as that part of economics where its “logic of stable and barn” may be considered as a tolerable expression of actual tendencies. But its application to political fact spells unempirical and unscientific disregard of the essence— the very logic—of political structures and mechanisms, and cannot produce anything but wishful daydreams and not very inspiring ones at that. The freely voting rational citizen, conscious of his (long-run) interests, and the representative who acts in obedience to them, the government that expresses these volitions—is this not the perfect example of a nursery tale. Accordingly we shall expect no contribution to a serviceable sociology of politics from this source. And this expectation is almost pathetically verified. J. A. Schumpeter1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
A. Schumpeter,History of Economic Analysis(New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), 429.
Walter Bagehot, “The Postulates of Political Economy,”Works (Hartford, Conn.: Travellers Insurance Company, 1891), vol. 5, pp. 243–244.
J. A. Schumpeter,Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York and London: Harper, 1942), 260.
Talcott Parsons, “The Motivation of Economic Activities,”Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied(Glencoe: The Free Press, 1949), 211.
J. M. Keynes, Essays in Biography (London: Ruper: Hart-Davis, 1951), 257.
Adolph Lowe,Economics and Sociology (London: Allen & Unwin, 1935).
Charles Lindblom’s review of Downs’ book inWorld Politics9, no. 2 (January 1957): 240–253.
Roland M. McKean, “Costs and Benefits from Different Viewpoints” (Paper delivered at the Conference on Public Expenditure Decisions in the Urban Community, May 14 and 15, 1962).
Gordon Tullock, ed.,A Practical Guide for Ambitious Politicians or Walsing- ham’s Manual (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1961), 1.
Alfred Marshall,Principles of Economics, 8th ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1961), vol. 1, p. 27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Banfield, E.C. (1985). Are Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus Kin?. In: Here the People Rule. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2481-2_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2481-2_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9504-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-2481-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive