Advertisement

Introduction

Chapter
Part of the International Studies in Economics and Econometrics book series (ISEE, volume 28)

Abstract

Until about a dozen years ago, the economic analysis of the relationship between political preferences and political demands was a rather straightforward, if dull, subject. The most common assumption was that the only political instrument available to citizens was the vote. Given this assumption, the analyst could express the outcome of the voting process in one of two ways. One possibility was to make the heroic assumptions necessary to obtain the median voter theorem, in which case, the political demands of the citizenry are simply the preferences of the median voter. The alternative was to make Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem in which case even though individual preferences are well ordered, no collective preference function exists. On either of these approaches, institutions such as interest groups, political parties, or the structures of political representation played no role in the analysis.

Keywords

Public Choice Political Party Median Voter Computable General Equilibrium Public Good Provision 
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.

Bibliography

  1. Alesina, Alberto. “Credibility and Policy Convergence in a Two-Party System with Rational Voters.”American Economic Review78 (1988): 796–805Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, Alberto. “Political Cycles.” (1990) Paper delivered at the European Public Choice Society meetings, Beaune, France, April 3, 1991Google Scholar
  3. Davis, O.A., Hinich, MJ., and Ordeshook, P.E. “An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process”American Political Science Review64 (1970): 426–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hibbs, Douglas A. “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy.”American Political Science Review76 (1977): 493–501Google Scholar
  5. Hinich, Melvin, Ledyard, John and Ordeshook, Peter “Nonvoting and the Existence of Equilibrium under Majority Rule.”Journal of Economic Theory4 (1972): 144–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mueller, D. H.Public Choice II.New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. North, Douglas, and Weingast, Barry. “Constitutions and Commitment: The Evolution of the Institutions Governing Public Choice in 17th Century England.”Journal of Economic History(December 1989)Google Scholar
  7. Persson, Torsten, and Svensson, Lars E. “Why a Stubborn Conservative Would Run a Deficit: Policy with Time-Inconsistent Preferences.”Quarterly Journal of Economics104 (1989): 325–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Shepsle, Kenneth. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multi-dimensional Voting Models.”American Journal of Political Science23 (1979): 27–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Tabellini, Guido. “The Politics of Intergenerational Redistribution.”Journal of Political Economy99 (1991): 335–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Weingast, Barry, and Marshall, William. “The Industrial Organization of Congress”Journal of Political Economy96 (1988)Google Scholar
  11. Wittman, Donald. “Parties As Utility Maximizes”American Political Science Review67 (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TorontoCanada
  2. 2.University of PerugiaItaly
  3. 3.University of BourgogneFrance
  4. 4.University of Western OntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations