¹ Almond, Gabriel A., A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1990), p. 19.Google Scholar

² Riker, William H., ‘The Two-Party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science’, American Political Science Review, 76 (1982), 753–66, p. 753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Bohman, James, ‘Communication, Ideology, and Democratic Theory’, American Political Science Review, 84 (1990), 93–109, p. 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar. One of the first attempts at dialogue across the two traditions is made by White, Stephen K., ‘Toward a Critical Political Science’, in Ball, Terence, ed., Idioms of Inquiry: Critique and Renewal in Political Science (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987)Google Scholar. White treats rational choice and critical theory as rival research programmes. He argues that critical theory outperforms its rival in two problem areas: the long-running community power debate, and the dynamics of modernization. More recently, Johnson, James, ‘Rational Choice as a Reconstructive Theory’, in Monroe, Kristen, ed., The Economic Approach to Politics (New York: Harper Collins, 1991)Google Scholar has interpreted rational choice's game theory in terms of critical theory's reconstructive science category.

⁴ Dogan, Mattei and Pahre, Robert, Creative Marginality: Innovation at the Intersection of Social Sciences (Boulder, Col.: Westview, 1990).Google Scholar

⁵ MacIntyre, Alasdair, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), pp. 364–5.Google Scholar

⁶ Political order should here be taken to mean political institutions that produce collective choices in consistent, non-dictatorial and non-violent fashion, and that can lay claim to public legitimacy.

⁷ For a review of the Rochester School, focusing on Riker, see Weale, Albert, ‘Social Choice Versus Populism? An Interpretation of Riker's Political Theory’, British Journal of Political Science, 14 (1984), 369–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For more general surveys of public choice, see McLean, Iain, ‘Some Recent Work in Public Choice’, British Journal of Political Science, 16 (1986), 377–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Mitchell, William C., ‘Virginia, Rochester, and Bloomington: Twenty-Five Years of Public Choice and Political Science’, Public Choice, 56 (1988), 101–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ More complete histories of the Frankfurt School may be found in Jay, Martin, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950 (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1973)Google Scholar and Held, David, Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas (London: Hutchinson, 1980)Google Scholar. For an excellent account of critical theory more generally, see Leonard, Stephen T., Critical Theory in Political Practice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. Critical theory of the sort under discussion here should not be confused with the efforts of Derrideans and deconstructionists in literary theory, who have unfortunately tried to appropriate the term.

⁹ There are feminists who would say that this really is a model of man.

¹⁰ Bohman, James, ‘Participating in Enlightenment: Habermas's Cognitivist Interpretation of Democracy’, in Dascal, Marcelo and Gruengard, Ora, eds, Knowledge and Politics (Boulder, Col.: Westview, 1989), p. 270.Google Scholar

¹¹ White, , ‘Toward a Critical Political Science’, p. 117.Google Scholar

¹² Marcuse, Herbert, One Dimensional Man (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1964).Google Scholar

¹³ Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor, Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Buchanan, James M., ‘Politics Without Romance: A Sketch of Positive Public Choice and its Normative Implications’, in Hamlin, Alan and Pettit, Philip, eds, Contemporary Political Theory (New York: Macmillan, 1991), p. 217.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Moon, J. Donald, ‘The Logic of Political Inquiry: A Synthesis of Opposed Perspectives’, in Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., eds, Handbook of Political Science, vol. 1 (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975)Google Scholar; Ball, Terence, ‘From Paradigms to Research Programs: Toward a Post-Kuhnian Political Science’, American Journal of Political Science, 20 (1976), 151–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ Riker, , ‘The Two-Party System’Google Scholar; Mitchell, , ‘Virginia, Rochester, and Bloomington’, pp. 102–6.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Buchanan, , ‘Politics Without Romance’, p. 217.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See also Johnson, , ‘Rational Choice as a Reconstructive Theory’.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Habermas, Jürgen, Knowledge and Human Interests (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Fay, Brian, Social Theory and Political Practice (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1975), pp. 29–47.Google Scholar

²⁰ Almond, , A Discipline Divided, pp. 16–17Google Scholar; Buchanan, , ‘Politics Without Romance’.Google Scholar

²¹ Brennan, Geoffrey, ‘Politics With Romance: Towards a Theory of Democratic Socialism’, in Pettit, Philip, ed., The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), p. 63.Google Scholar

²² Wittman, Donald, ‘Why Democracies Produce Efficient Outcomes’, Journal of Political Economy, 97 (1989), 1395–1424, p. 1395, n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Arrow, Kenneth J., Social Choice and Individual Values, rev. edn. (New York: Wiley, 1963).Google Scholar

²⁴ Riker, William H., Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982), p. 241.Google Scholar

²⁵ Buchanan, James M. and Tullock, Gordon, The Calculus of Consent (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A situation is Pareto optimal when no individual can be made better off without making some other individual worse off. The criterion is much favoured by welfare economists, who generally argue that perfect markets produce this kind of outcome.

²⁶ Niskanen, William A., Bureaucracy and Representative Government (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971).Google Scholar

²⁷ Fiorina, Morris P., Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

²⁸ Friedman, Milton and Friedman, Rose, Tyranny of the Status Quo (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984).Google Scholar

²⁹ Mitchell, , ‘Virginia, Rochester, and Bloomington’, p. 108.Google Scholar

³⁰ Olson, Mancur, The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

³¹ Barry, Brian and Hardin, Russell, eds, Rational Man and Irrational Society? (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982).Google Scholar

³² Riker, , Liberalism Against Populism, p. xviii.Google Scholar

³³ Brennan, , ‘Politics With Romance’.Google Scholar

³⁴ Brennan, , ‘Politics With Romance’, p. 62.Google Scholar

³⁵ For Brennan, politicians should actually believe these principles, and not just act as if they believed them. A similar function is performed by Downs's argument that rational parties should espouse ideologies of some stability, because otherwise rational voters would not believe that parties will keep their election-time promises. See Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957)Google Scholar. But for Downs, it is not necessary for politicians to actually believe in their ideologies.

³⁶ Bohman, , ‘Communication, Ideology’, p. 107.Google Scholar

³⁷ To use the title of Mitchell, William C., Government As It Is (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1988).Google Scholar

³⁸ Habermas, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1984).Google Scholar

³⁹ Brennan, , ‘Politics With Romance’.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Vanberg, Viktor and Buchanan, James M., ‘Interests and Theories in Constitutional Choice’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1 (1989), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Vanberg, and Buchanan, , ‘Interests and Theories’, p. 59.Google Scholar

⁴² Vanberg, and Buchanan, , ‘Interests and Theories’, p. 60.Google Scholar

⁴³ Vanberg, and Buchanan, , ‘Interests and Theories’, p. 60.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Critical theorists themselves would also point to the influence here of education, the experience of participation in collective life, the increasing availability of information, the reduced pressure of subsistence needs and the diffusion of democratic ideas.

⁴⁵ Cultural variability in other kinds of societies may limit instrumental rationality. See Almond, , A Discipline Divided, pp. 134–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Arguably, public choice implicitly warrants further behavioural constraints by treating particular kinds of maximization as inevitable in particular locations. So consumers maximize utility through consumption, producers maximize profits, bureaucrats maximize budgets, politicians maximize their probability of election and re-election, citizens maximize benefits to themselves by choosing among candidates for office (assuming they are irrational enough to vote) and so forth. Hindess, Barry, Political Choice and Social Structure (Aldershot, Hants.: Edward Elgar, 1989), pp. 56–60Google Scholar, claims that public choice is guilty of a kind of structural determinism, in which individual behaviour and the shape of individual preference ordering (be it cardinal, ordinal or lexical) is caused by one's place in established social structures, rather than freely chosen. In reply to Hindess, it must be said that rational choice theorists simply point out that choice occurs within a contextually-constrained feasible set, which is not the same as requiring that the individual's method of choice be structurally determined. Public choice also allows that individuals may seek to manipulate the parameters of structural situations; see Riker, William H., ‘The Heresthetics of Constitution-Making: The Presidency in 1787, with Comments on Determinism and Rational Choice’, American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ Dawes, R., McTavish, J. and Shaklee, H., ‘Behavior, Communications, and Assumptions About Other Peoples' Behavior in a Commons Dilemma Situation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (1977), 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orbell, John M., van de Kragt, Alphons J. C. and Dawes, Robyn M., ‘Explaining Discussion-Induced Cooperation in Social Dilemmas’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (1988), 811–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Baseline and discussion-induced co-operation rates are not a function of subjects interacting outside the experiment. The Orbell-Dawes experiments do not recruit their subjects from undergraduate classes but rather through newspaper advertisements. Real money is at stake and care is taken to ensure that participants in each group are strangers to one another, with no particular likelihood of future interaction.

⁴⁹ Orbell, John M., Dawes, Robyn M. and van de Kragt, Alphons J. C., ‘The Limits of Multilateral Promising’, Ethics, 100(1990), 616–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁰ Buchanan, James M., ‘Then and Now, 1961–1986: From Delusion to Dystopia’, paper presented at the Institute for Humane Studies, 1986Google Scholar, quoted in Mansbridge, Jane J., ‘The Rise and Fall of Self-interest in the Explanation of Political Life’, in Mansbridge, Jane J., ed, Beyond Self-Interest (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 21.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Hirschman, Albert O., The Passions and the Interests: Political A rgumentsfor Capitalism Before its Triumph (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

⁵² Mansbridge, Jane J., Beyond Adversary Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).Google Scholar

⁵³ Dryzek, John S., Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 38–48.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Dryzek, , Discursive Democracy, pp. 37–8, 48–50.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Barber, Benjamin, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Mansbridge, , Beyond Adversary Democracy.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Forester, John, Planning in the Face of Power (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Kelman, Steven, ‘“Public Choice” and Public Spirit’, The Public Interest, 87 (1987), 80–94.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Hardin, Russell, ‘Review Article: Constitutional Political Economy – Agreement on Rules’, British Journal of Political Science, 18 (1988), 513–30, p. 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁰ Buchanan and others draw a sharp distinction between ‘constitutional’ and ‘in-period’ collective choice. They hope that constitutional choice will involve such uncertainty about the effects of different arrangements on particular individuals' well-being that each individual will behave in impartial fashion. This hope contradicts the public choice literature on rent-seeking, which argues that individuals will seek rules favourable to themselves; see Vanberg, and Buchanan, , ‘Interests and Theories’, p. 53.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976 [1776]).Google Scholar

⁶² Friedman, Milton and Friedman, Rose, Free to Choose (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979), p. 30.Google Scholar

⁶³ Smith, Adam, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Oxford: Clarenden, 1976[1759]).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Gauthier, David, Morals by Agreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Phillipson, Nicholas, ‘Adam Smith as a Civic Moralist’, in Hont, Istvan and Ignatieff, Michael, eds, Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 183.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ A century later, Edgeworth would argue, relatedly, that the economic calculus is appropriate only to war and contract; see Sen, Amartya K., ‘Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory’, in Harris, H., ed., Scientific Models and Man (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 317.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Smith, , Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 342.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Hont, Istvan and Ignatieff, Michael, ‘Needs and Justice in The Wealth of Nations’Google Scholar, in Hont, and Ignatieff, , eds, Wealth and Virtue, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Winch, Donald, ‘Adam Smith's “Enduring Particular Result”: A Political and Cosmopolitan Perspective’Google Scholar, in Hont, and Ignatieff, , eds, Wealth and Virtue, p. 260.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Elster, Jon, Making Sense of Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Przeworski, Adam, Capitalism and Social Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roemer, John, ed., Analytical Marxism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Weldes, Jutta, ‘Marxism and Methodological Individualism: A Critique’, Theory and Society, 18 (1989), 353–86, p. 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷² Elster, Jon, ‘Marxism and Individualism’Google Scholar, in Dascal, and Gruengard, , eds, Knowledge and Politics, p. 193.Google Scholar

⁷³ Barry, and Hardin, , Rational Man and Irrational Society?, p. 383.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Downs, , An Economic Theory of Democracy.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Riker, William H. and Ordeshook, Peter C., ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’, American Political Science Review, 72 (1968), 25–42, p. 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁶ Enelow, James and Hinich, Melvin, The Spatial Theory of Voting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 221.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Brennan, , ‘Politics With Romance’.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Buchanan, , ‘Then and Now’.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Vanberg, and Buchanan, , ‘Interests and Theories’.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Elster, Jon, ‘The Market and the Forum’, in Elster, Jon and Hylland, Aanud, eds, Foundations of Social Choice Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 114.Google Scholar