Featured White Papers
Content provided in partnership with
Business Services Industry
Introduction
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Jan, 2004 by Joseph C. Pitt, Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, Douglas Eckel
Susanne Lohmann's paper, "A Toy Model of Scientific Progress," directly addresses the subject of the conference. Deriving the principles of success of research programs in modern universities from the tenets of public choice, she posits that, to be successful, research programs must combine deeply specialized clusters with cross-fertilization across clusters. Her analysis suggests that "society needs to allow for competition and make it easy for scientists with new ideas and methods to enter the system." Once in the system, scientists in different clusters need ways to get unstuck, of in other words, ways to communicate with others outside their cluster for fresh ideas and methods.
Susan Snyder's comments on the Lohmann paper, titled "Scientific Progress and Lessons for Institutional Design," suggest how Lohmann's model might be used in the design of research ventures at other universities. She proposes an interesting research program on institutional design that cuts across disciplines.
The research agenda described in the Ostroms' paper, "The Quest for Meaning in Public Choice," is an example of prospective development of rational choice and public choice in the field of political science. The Ostroms create a model that allows behavioral assumptions for analyzing the characteristics of socially beneficial collective action in everything from constitutional rule making to the management of common pool resources. Constitutional rule making, one of the early areas of focus in public choice, has clearly been one of the main topics in this investigation and was one of the starting points for the Ostroms' research. The Ostroms' Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/) at Indiana University in Bloomington is an example of an intellectual critical mass similar in both structure and mission to the Blacksburg experience. It includes many of the Blacksburg elements: a strong visiting scholar program; a well-organized research agenda; the production of graduate students; and intensive cross-fertilization between economics and political science.
Michael Munger's discussion of the Ostroms' paper provides some insight into mainstream political science critiques of the prospective public choice approach in the Ostroms' work. His paper posits an alternative model for the evolution and maintenance of "logical foundations for order in human societies." He questions the assumption that these foundations can be directly engineered in a systematic way, distinguishing between evolution of institutions through "accident and force" and alternatively "reflection and choice."
Sonia Amadae, on the other hand, praises their "direct pertinence to contemporary practices of government." She notes that the Ostroms in fact reflect the appropriate humility for this type of research, given that their model follows on empirical research suggesting humans have often solved the "tragedy of the commons" in self-governing cases.
In "When Hard Heads Collide: A Philosopher Encounters Public Choice," Loren Lomasky does two things. He begins with a firsthand account of some of the people he interacted with at the Center, and then he tells us some of what he learned. Aside from the revealing personal anecdotes, we learn something of what it was like to be a visiting fellow at the Center for Public Choice. It is also a brief study in culture clash, as Lomasky reports his introduction to intellectual activity as blood sport. Second, he reviews some of the strengths and weaknesses of public choice from a philosophical point of view and offers some suggestions. The suggestions concern primarily the narrow focus of public choice theory with its emphasis on the material nature of interests. Finally, he offers a technique for including moral interests in the deliberations of decision makers.
