Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:40:53.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TECNICHE DECISIONALI E SISTEMA DEI COMITATI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2016

Giovanni Sartori
Get access

Introduzione

Il problema delle tecniche decisionali — nel significato piú lato della dizione — si pone per le decisioni collettivizzate, e cioè sottratte alla competenza di ciascun individuo in quanto tale. Se per decisione individuale si intende che ogni individuo ≪ decide per sé ≫, allora le decisioni collettivizzate sono decisioni non-individuali. Nulla vieta beninteso, che una decisione collettivizzata venga presa da una persona sola. Ma se quella persona ≪ decide per tutti ≫, e la sua decisione è vincolante nei confronti di tutta la collettività alla quale è indirizzata, allora abbiamo una decisione collettivizzata. Dunque — sia chiaro — la nozione di collettivizzazione non postula che il soggetto decidente sia un ≪ collettivo ≫, o meglio un ≪ gruppo ≫; postula che le decisioni prese valgano per tutta la collettività alla quale sono destinate.

Summary

Summary

The starting point of the analysis is the Calculus of Consent by Buchanan and Tullock. A major modification is introduced, however, in their concept of external costs, which is redefined in term of ≪ risks ≫ that are truly external, i.e. affecting the collectivity at large. As a consequence, the frame of reference no longer is direct, but representative democracy. Decision making techniques are assessed in relation to i) their zero sum or positive sum outcomes, ii) their conditions of applicability (the structure of alternatives), and iii) their over time distributive effects. In this perspective the committee system is appraised and placed within the overall context of a democratic system, with special emphasis on participatory demands on the one hand, and on ≪ democracy in output ≫ (equi-distribution) on the other hand. In spite of mounting dissatisfaction, representational techniques of controlled transmission of power remain essential for reducing the external risks without intolerable decision costs. But the attempt pursued in the essay at bringing together the manifold strands of the literature brings out how much has yet to be explored.

Type
Saggi
Information
Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , April 1974 , pp. 5 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Società Italiana di Scienza Politica 

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

Bibliografia

Arrow, K., Social Choice and Individual Values , New York, Wiley, 1963 2 .Google Scholar
Arrow, K., A Utilitarian Approach to the Concept of Equality in Public Expenditure , in ≪ Quarterly Journal of Economics ≫, (1971), pp. 409–415.Google Scholar
Barbut, M., Quelques Aspects Mathématiques de la Décision Rationelle , in ≪ Les Temps Modernes ≫, XV (1959), pp. 725–45.Google Scholar
Berg, E., Democracy and the Majority Principle (A Study of Twelve Contemporary Political Theories) , Stockolm, Akademikförlaget, 1965.Google Scholar
Black, D., The Theory of Committees and Elections , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Blau, P., Exchange and Power in Social Life , New York, Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J., Individual Choice in Voting and in the Market , in ≪ Journal of Political Economy ≫, XXVII (1954), pp. 334–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J. e Tullock, G., The Calculus of Consent , Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Burnham, W. D., The Congress and the American Tradition , Chicago, Regnery, 1959, cap. ≪ What is a Majority ≫.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S., Foundations of a Theory of Collective Decisions , in ≪ American Journal of Sociology ≫, LXXI (1966), pp. 615–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H., Social Choice and Strength of Preference , in Thrall, Coombs, e Davis, , (eds.), Decision Processes , New York, Wiley, 1954.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A., A Preface to Democratic Theory , Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1956.Google Scholar
Downs, A., In Defence of Majority Voting , in ≪ Journal of Political Economy ≫, LXIX (1961), pp. 192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farquharson, R., Theory of Voting , New Haven, Yale University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Grofman, B., Some Notes on Voting Schemes and the Will of the Majority , in ≪ Public Choice ≫, VII (1969), pp. 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A., The Constitution of Liberty , London, Routledge & Kegan, 1960.Google Scholar
Heinberg, J. H., History of the Majority Principle , in ≪ American Political Science Review ≫, XX (1926), pp. 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinberg, J. H., Theories of Majority Rule , in ≪ American Political Science Review ≫, XXVI (1932), pp. 452–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homans, G. C., Social Behavior as Exchange , in ≪ American Journal of Sociology ≫, LXIII (1958), pp. 597–606 (ora in Sentiments and Activities, London, Routledge & Kegan, 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homans, G. C., Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms , New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1961.Google Scholar
Kendall, W., John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority Rule , Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1941.Google Scholar
Kendall, W., Prolegomena to Any Future Work on Majority Rule , ≪ Journal of Politics ≫, XII (1950), pp. 694–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, W. e Carey, G. W., The Intensity Problem and Democratic Theory , in ≪ American Political Science Review ≫, LXII (1968), pp. 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouvenel (de), B., The Pure Theory of Politics , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
Leoni, B., Freedom and the Law , Princeton, Van Nostrand, 1961.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E., The Intelligence of Democracy. Decision-Making Through Mutual Adjustment , New York, Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Luce, D., Individual Choice Behavior , New York, Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Luce, D. e Raiffa, H., Games and Decisions , New York, Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
March, J. G., The Business Firm as a Political Coalition , in ≪ Journal of Politics ≫, XXIV (1962), pp. 662–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, H., The Fallacy of Absolute Majority Rule , in ≪ Journal of Politics ≫, XI (1949), pp. 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulin, L., Origines des Techniques Electorales , in ≪ Le Contrat Social ≫, (mai 1960), pp. 172–178.Google Scholar
Moulin, L., Le monde vivant des religieux - dominicains, jésuites, bénédectins , Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1964.Google Scholar
Murakami, Y., Logic and Social Choice , London, Routledge & Kegan, 1968.Google Scholar
Niemi, R. e Weisberg, H., The Effects of Group Size on Collective Decision-Making , in Niemi, R. (a cura di), Probability Models of Collective Decision-Making , Columbus, Merrill, 1972.Google Scholar
Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action , Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Pennock, R. J., Majority Rule , in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences , New York, Macmillan & Free Press, 1968, vol. IV.Google Scholar
Rae, D. W., Decision-Rules and Individual Values in Constitutional Choice , in ≪ American Political Science Review ≫, LXIII (1969), pp. 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, D. W., The Limits of Consensual Decision , in ≪ American Political Science Review ≫, di prossima pubblicazione.Google Scholar
Rae, D. W. e Taylor, M., Some Ambiguities in the Concept of ≪ Intensity ≫ , in ≪ Polity ≫, I (1969), pp. 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, W. e Ordeshook, P. C., A Theory of the Calculus of Voting , in ≪ American Political Science Review ≫, LXII (1968), pp. 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothenberg, J., The Measurement of Social Welfare , Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1961.Google Scholar
Ruffini, A. E., Il principio maggioritario: profilo storico , Torino, 1927.Google Scholar
Sartori, G., Representational Systems , in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences , cit., vol. XIII (riprodotto in Appendice alla 3a ed. di Democrazia e definizioni, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1969).Google Scholar
Simon, H. A., Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science , in ≪ American Economic Review ≫, IL (1969), pp. 253–283.Google Scholar
Taylor, M., Proof of a Theorem on Majority Rule , in ≪ Behavioral Science ≫, XIV (1969), pp. 228–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M., The Problem of Salience in the Theory of Collective Decision-Making , in ≪ Behavioral Science ≫, XV (1970), pp. 415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, B., Majority Rule and Allocation , in ≪ Journal of Conflict Resolution ≫, V (1961), pp. 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheare, K. G., Government by Committee: An Essay on the British Constitution , Oxford, Clarendon, 1955.Google Scholar