Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:47:32.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutionalizing the Public Interest: The Defense of Deadlock and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert E. Goodin
Robert E. Goodin*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many bemoan divided government and the consequent deadlock of democracy. The logic of The Federalist arguably defends it, in ways heretofore unappreciated, by appeal to a least-common-denominator definition of the “public interest.” That quasi-Federalist logic is explored, and alternative political structures are assessed against the public interest criterion to which it appeals. Another and more defensible notion of the public interest is introduced, and its very different political styles, institutions, and policies are adduced.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 90 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 331 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Political Science Association, Committee on Political Parties. 1950. “Toward a More Responsible Two-party System.” American Political Science Review 44(September, supplement).Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1946. The Politics, trans. Barker, Ernest. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bardhan, Pranab, and Roemer, John, eds. 1993. Market Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1964. “The Public Interest.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplement) 38:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1965. Political Argument. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1989. “The Continuing Relevance of Socialism.” In Democracy, Power and Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan. 1983. “Positive and Negative Relevance.” American Philosophical Quarterly 20(April):185–94.Google Scholar
Berman, Harold J. 1983. Law and Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M. 1977. Lobbying for the People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack M. 1979. “The Evolution of Decisions in a Thai Village: A Quasi-Experimental Study.” Human Organization 38(Summer): 169–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstone, William. 1769. “Of Public Wrongs.” Book 4 of Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bruni, Leonardo. 1987. “On the Florentine Constitution.” In The Humanism of Leonardo Bruni, ed. Griffiths, Gordon, Hankins, James, and Thompson, David. Binghamton, N.Y.: Renaissance Society of America.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M., and Tullock, Gordon. 1962. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, Robertson, David, and Hearl, Derek, eds. 1987. Ideology, Strategy and Party Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burns, James MacGregor. 1963. The Deadlock of Democracy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Burns, James MacGregor. 1984. The Power to Lead. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Calhoun, John C. [1853] 1992. A Disquisition on Government. In Calhoun, John C., Union and Liberty, ed. Lence, Ross M.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Cole, G. D. H. 1920. Guild Socialism Re-stated. London: Leonard Parsons.Google Scholar
Committee on the Constitutional System. 1987. A Bicentennial Analysis of the American Political Structure. Washington, DC: the Committee.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and Kernell, Samuel, eds. 1991. The Politics of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Cutler, Lloyd N. 1988. “Some Reflections about Divided Government.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 18(Summer):485–92.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dawes, Robyn, McTavish, Jeanne, and Shaklee, Harriet. 1977. “Behavior, Communications and Assumptions about Other People's Behavior in a Commons Dilemma Situation.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 35(January):1–35.Google Scholar
Dawes, Robyn M., van de Kragt, Alphons J. C., and Orbell, John M.. 1990. “Cooperation for the Benefit of Us—Not Me, or My Conscience.” In Beyond Self-Interest, ed. Mansbridge, Jane J.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank H. 1994. “The State of Madison's Vision of the State: A Public Choice Perspective.” Harvard Law Review 107(April):1328–47.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1980. “The Decline of Collective Responsibility in American Politics.” Daedalus 109(Summer):25–45.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1992. Divided Government. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Flathman, Richard E. 1966. The Public Interest. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. 1971. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” Journal of Philosophy 68(January):5–20.Google Scholar
Frey, Bruno S., and Bohnet, I.. N.d. “Cooperation, Communication and Communitarianism: An Experimental Approach.” Journal of Political Philosophy. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Gardner, John W. 1972. In Common Cause. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 1992. Motivating Political Morality. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 1995. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. N.d. “Enfranchising the Earth, and Its Alternatives.” Political Studies. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 1995. “Interest Representation and Democratic Gridlock.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (November): 531–52.Google Scholar
Gunn, J. A. W. 1989. “Public Interest.” In Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, ed. Ball, T., Farr, J., and Hanson, R. L.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John. [1787–1788] 1961. The Federalist, ed. Cooke, Jacob E.. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 1982. Collective Action. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Fred R. 1993. Deadlock or Decision. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1970. The Public Interest and Individual Interests. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Hirst, Paul. 1994. Associative Democracy. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
Hurwicz, Leonid. 1977. “The Design of Resource Allocation Mechanisms.” In Studies in Resource Allocation Processes, ed. Arrow, Kenneth J. and Hurwicz, Leonid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles O. 1994. The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles O. 1995. Separate But Equal Branches. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Kasarda, John D., and Janowitz, Morris. 1974. “Community Attachments in Mass Society.” American Sociological Review 39(June): 328–39.Google Scholar
Kenyon, Cecelia M., ed. 1966. The Antifederalists. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Keohane, Nannerl O. 1980. Philosophy and the State in France. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, D. Roderick. 1983. Micropolitics and Macroeconomics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kirchheimer, Otto. 1966. “The Transformation of the Western European Party System.” In Political Parties and Political Development, ed. LaPalombara, Joseph and Wiener, Myron. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Evron M. 1971. “Toward a More Responsible Two-party System: Political Science, Policy Science or Pseudo-science?” American Political Science Review 65(December):965–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1989. “A Rationale for Restrictive Rules.” In Home Style and Washington Work, ed. Fiorina, Morris P. and Rohde, David W.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A.. 1991. “Divided Government: America Is Not Exceptional.” Governance 4(July):250–69.Google Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence, and Sunstein, Cass R.. 1994. “The President and the Administration.” Columbia Law Review 94(January):1–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1975. The Politics of Accommodation. 2d ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, S. M., and Rokkan, Stein, eds. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1689. Two Treatises of Government. London: Awnsham & Churchill.Google Scholar
Longley, Lawrence D., and Oleszek, Walter J.. 1989. Bicameral Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Maass, Arthur. 1983. Congress and the Common Good. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Madison, James. [1840] 1966. Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Matthews, Donald R. 1959. “The Folkways of the United States Senate.” American Political Science Review 53(December):1064–89.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1991. Divided We Govern. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Midgaard, Knud. 1976. “Co-operative Negotiations and Bargaining: Some Notes on Power and Powerlessness.” In Power and Political Theory, ed. Barry, Brian. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Baron de. [1748] 1949. The Spirit of the Laws, trans. Nugent, Thomas. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur Jr. 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Orbell, John M., von de Kragt, Alphons J. C., and Dawes, Robyn M.. 1988. Explaining Discussion-Induced Cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(May):811–19.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor, Gardner, Roy, and Walker, James. 1994. Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor, Walker, James, and Gardner, Roy. 1992. “Covenants with and without a Sword: Self-Governance Is Possible.” American Political Science Review 86(June):404–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Vincent. 1987. The Political Theory of a Compound Republic. 2d ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1978. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas W. 1975. “The Limits of Consensual Decision.” American Political Science Review 69(December): 1270–94.Google Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1962. The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1975. Curing the Mischiefs of Faction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Reich, Robert B., ed. 1988. The Power of Public Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Riley, Patrick. 1986. The General Will Before Rousseau. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Donald L., ed. 1985. Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Rohrschneider, R. 1988. “Citizens' Attitudes toward Environmental Issues: Selfish or Selfless?” Comparative Political Studies 21(October):347–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1762] 1973. The Social Contract. In The Social Contract and Discourses, trans. Cole, G.D.H.. New ed. London: Everyman/Dent.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. [1772] 1986. “Considerations on the Government of Poland and on Its Proposed Reformation.” In Jean Jacques Rousseau: Political Writings, ed. and trans. Watkins, Frederick. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Scanlan, James P. 1959. “The Federalist and Human Nature.” Review of Politics 21(October):657–77.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe, and Lehmbruch, Gerhard, eds. 1979. Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1960. The Public Interest. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 1980. Basic Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sorenson, Theodore C. 1984. A Different Kind of Presidency: A Proposal for Breaking the Political Deadlock. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Storing, Herbert J., ed. 1981. The Anti-Federalist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 1988–1989. “Needed: A Political Theory for the New Era of Coalition Government in the United States.” Political Science Quarterly 103(Winter):613–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundquist, James L., ed. 1993. Beyond Gridlock? Prospects for Governance in the Clinton Years and After. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Taylor, Michael. 1996. “Good Government: On Hierarchy, Social Capital and the Limitations of Rational Choice Theory.” Journal of Political Philosophy 4(March):3–30.Google Scholar
Taylor, Serge. 1984. Making Bureaucracies Think. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Thurber, James A. 1991. Divided Democracy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Underdal, Arild. 1980. The Politics of International Fisheries Management. Oslo: Universiteitsforlaget.Google Scholar
Uslaner, Eric M. 1991. “Comity in Context.” British Journal of Political Science 21(January):45–78.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1993. “When Justice Replaces Affection: The Need for Rights.” In Liberal Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, Gary. 1975. “Free Agency.” Journal of Philosophy 72(April): 205–20.Google Scholar
Wicksell, Kurt. [1896] 1967. “A New Principle of Just Taxation.” In Classics in the Theory of Public Finance, ed. Musgrave, Richard A. and Peacock, Alan T.. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.