What do you think?
Rate this book
The Calculus of Consent (Collected Works of James M. Buchanan, The) by James Buchanan
A scientific study of the political and economic factors influencing democratic decision making
Paperback
First published January 1, 1962
25 people are currently reading
1142 people want to read
About the author
James M. Buchanan
140 books66 followersAmerican economist known for his work on public choice theory, for which in 1986 he received the Nobel Memorial Prize. Buchanan's work initiated research on how politicians' self-interest and non-economic forces affect government economic policy. He was a Member of the Board of Advisors of The Independent Institute, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute, and professor at George Mason University.
Buchanan was the founder of a new Virginia school of political economy. He taught at the University of Virginia—where he founded the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression—UCLA, Florida State University, the University of Tennessee, and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, where he founded the Center for the Study of Public Choice (CSPC). In 1983 a conflict with Economics Department head Daniel M. Orr came to a head and Buchanan took the CSPC to its new home at George Mason University. In 1988 Buchanan returned to Hawaii for the first time since the War and gave a series of lectures later published by the University Press. In 2001 Buchanan received an honorary doctoral degree from Universidad Francisco Marroquín, in Guatemala City, Guatemala, for his contribution to economics.
Buchanan was the founder of a new Virginia school of political economy. He taught at the University of Virginia—where he founded the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression—UCLA, Florida State University, the University of Tennessee, and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, where he founded the Center for the Study of Public Choice (CSPC). In 1983 a conflict with Economics Department head Daniel M. Orr came to a head and Buchanan took the CSPC to its new home at George Mason University. In 1988 Buchanan returned to Hawaii for the first time since the War and gave a series of lectures later published by the University Press. In 2001 Buchanan received an honorary doctoral degree from Universidad Francisco Marroquín, in Guatemala City, Guatemala, for his contribution to economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
November 20, 2019
Engineered to perfection like revolutionary clockwork, Buchanan & Tullock's classic text is one of the most important works of political economy in the 20st Century. On the face of it, is an economizing theory of constitutional democracy, but it is much more than that. It ingeniously synthesizes several strands in political philosophy, political science, rational choice theory, and welfare economics. Every chapter is a gold mine of tantalizing premises and simple yet suggestive models leading to counter-intuitive but compelling conclusions with the help of logically airtight arguments.
The book famously relies on rather restrictive and dubious assumptions about Homo economicus that it imports from neoclassical economics (and to a lesser extent from the "realist" school of political philosophy going back to Machiavelli and Hobbes). And, in addition, it can be accused of smuggling in cultural biases about the inherent superiority of American constitutionalism. But these limitations impose an awesome discipline on the enterprise. The authors perform such amazing feats, ranging from novel methodological innovations to constitutional revolutions, with these assumptions that the end result transcends methodological or cultural limitations.
Calculus of Consent is a bottomless wishing well of innovative research programs. A new theory of constitutional democracy? Check. A revitalization of contractarian thinking? Check. A pioneering application of the economic exchange logic into politics? Check. A tentative proof of the need to apply the same model of human behaviour across all domains of human action (the behavioural symmetry assumption)? Check. A novel rediscovery of the Wicksellian unanimity principle of decision making as the appropriate political equivalent of the Pareto criterion? Check. A groundbreaking explanation of the surprising utility of logrolling in majoritarian democratic politics? Check... This book has so much exciting and novel stuff on its 300 pages!
The writing can be extremely dry, no doubt. But if you want to read Harry Potter, there's a time and a place for that. No, you come here for the harsh and brutal scientific epiphanies. Another objection correctly argues that the deductive premises of the book rely on behavioural premises that have come under a lot of fire and criticism. As a result, the policy conclusions are only exploratory and hypothetical, as the authors confess. They need to be tested empirically for validity. But without such models, there can be no advancement in science! Such models find their scientific anchor in the solid predictions and falsifiable hypotheses that the book (rightfully) celebrates as its proudest achievements. The freedom of the spirit, the pure spirit of Science, that soars in their mathematical and logical models, is an engine of the imagination that dreams of new futurities. Abstractions, too, have the potential to revolutionize the practical organization of Western democratic politics.
This, my friends, is a Titan among books. There is no school of political science or political philosophy that can dismiss all of its theses. If you try to run away and hide from this book, it will follow you home, find you, and kill you (or your illusions). It will laugh in the face of the destruction it brings. It challenges several hundred years of established wisdom! Although the book's arguments or conclusions can be contested they cannot be ignored. Like Rawls or Nozick, Buchanan & Tullock have created a contemporary classic of the highest order. It may not immediately pull at the heartstrings of the masses or inspire the songs of youth, but its dry, Apollonian exterior masques a Dionysian interior that sparks joy, wonder, and potency.
The book famously relies on rather restrictive and dubious assumptions about Homo economicus that it imports from neoclassical economics (and to a lesser extent from the "realist" school of political philosophy going back to Machiavelli and Hobbes). And, in addition, it can be accused of smuggling in cultural biases about the inherent superiority of American constitutionalism. But these limitations impose an awesome discipline on the enterprise. The authors perform such amazing feats, ranging from novel methodological innovations to constitutional revolutions, with these assumptions that the end result transcends methodological or cultural limitations.
Calculus of Consent is a bottomless wishing well of innovative research programs. A new theory of constitutional democracy? Check. A revitalization of contractarian thinking? Check. A pioneering application of the economic exchange logic into politics? Check. A tentative proof of the need to apply the same model of human behaviour across all domains of human action (the behavioural symmetry assumption)? Check. A novel rediscovery of the Wicksellian unanimity principle of decision making as the appropriate political equivalent of the Pareto criterion? Check. A groundbreaking explanation of the surprising utility of logrolling in majoritarian democratic politics? Check... This book has so much exciting and novel stuff on its 300 pages!
The writing can be extremely dry, no doubt. But if you want to read Harry Potter, there's a time and a place for that. No, you come here for the harsh and brutal scientific epiphanies. Another objection correctly argues that the deductive premises of the book rely on behavioural premises that have come under a lot of fire and criticism. As a result, the policy conclusions are only exploratory and hypothetical, as the authors confess. They need to be tested empirically for validity. But without such models, there can be no advancement in science! Such models find their scientific anchor in the solid predictions and falsifiable hypotheses that the book (rightfully) celebrates as its proudest achievements. The freedom of the spirit, the pure spirit of Science, that soars in their mathematical and logical models, is an engine of the imagination that dreams of new futurities. Abstractions, too, have the potential to revolutionize the practical organization of Western democratic politics.
This, my friends, is a Titan among books. There is no school of political science or political philosophy that can dismiss all of its theses. If you try to run away and hide from this book, it will follow you home, find you, and kill you (or your illusions). It will laugh in the face of the destruction it brings. It challenges several hundred years of established wisdom! Although the book's arguments or conclusions can be contested they cannot be ignored. Like Rawls or Nozick, Buchanan & Tullock have created a contemporary classic of the highest order. It may not immediately pull at the heartstrings of the masses or inspire the songs of youth, but its dry, Apollonian exterior masques a Dionysian interior that sparks joy, wonder, and potency.
January 10, 2009
The Calculus of Consent is one of the classic works in the public choice literature.
This work presents what has come to be the basic principles of public choice theory. Traditionally political scientists had defined the political process as a system in which decisions about public policy is viewed through the lens of a struggle between “public” and “private” interests. Instead, Buchanan and Tullock suggest that the “public interest” is simply an aggregation of private decision makers.
They contend that in classical political science theory, the policy that is in the “public interest” is always the correct choice and always appeals to all voters. But that theory ignores the fact that most policy choices appeal to different groups to different degrees. For example, when confronted with a proposed increase in defense spending some voters while either strongly oppose or favor it, but most will prove to be largely indifferent.
They compare this state of affairs to transactions that take place in a market setting, where the voters strongly desiring a certain policy could purchase the acceptance of the opposition and indifferent voters with concessions, resulting in an efficient allocation of resources, increasing the well-being of all parties involved. However the equivalent of this in the realm of the political process is that politicians buy the votes of other politicians (or groups of special-interests) by promising to vote for their issues.
Buchanan and Tullock are of the opinion that “pork-barrel politics” such as this is what we should expect to see as the norm, but in the traditional political science theory, it is anomalous. Which is to say, that their model presents a more accurate and complete model of political decision-making than previous models of politics.
This work presents what has come to be the basic principles of public choice theory. Traditionally political scientists had defined the political process as a system in which decisions about public policy is viewed through the lens of a struggle between “public” and “private” interests. Instead, Buchanan and Tullock suggest that the “public interest” is simply an aggregation of private decision makers.
They contend that in classical political science theory, the policy that is in the “public interest” is always the correct choice and always appeals to all voters. But that theory ignores the fact that most policy choices appeal to different groups to different degrees. For example, when confronted with a proposed increase in defense spending some voters while either strongly oppose or favor it, but most will prove to be largely indifferent.
They compare this state of affairs to transactions that take place in a market setting, where the voters strongly desiring a certain policy could purchase the acceptance of the opposition and indifferent voters with concessions, resulting in an efficient allocation of resources, increasing the well-being of all parties involved. However the equivalent of this in the realm of the political process is that politicians buy the votes of other politicians (or groups of special-interests) by promising to vote for their issues.
Buchanan and Tullock are of the opinion that “pork-barrel politics” such as this is what we should expect to see as the norm, but in the traditional political science theory, it is anomalous. Which is to say, that their model presents a more accurate and complete model of political decision-making than previous models of politics.
June 6, 2020
Wow.
An awareness of the general outline of "public choice" economics has been something I've noticed influencing my thinking more and more over the last fifteen years. Some recent research I was doing called for me to understand it better, and so I tackled this foundational work in the field.
I will begin by saying that Buchanan deserved his Nobel prize for this pioneering work, and Tullock deserves the same recognition. This is as foundational a work in describing the behavior of collective institutions such as governments as "The Wealth of Nations" in describing the behavior of markets.
It is not the easiest of books to read. Not because of the prose -- Buchanan and Tullock do a good job explaining a very complex subject with clear examples. But they are laying out a whole new approach here, and I found it necessary to pause after every chapter to think through the implications and absorb the material before going on.
But, quite simply, this is a field which one simply should regard as indispensable before having an informed opinion on government, how it should be organized, what one should expect from it (both good and bad), and what one the sphere of government action should be.
There are probably easier, more modern treatments for the material, but this is the foundational work.
An awareness of the general outline of "public choice" economics has been something I've noticed influencing my thinking more and more over the last fifteen years. Some recent research I was doing called for me to understand it better, and so I tackled this foundational work in the field.
I will begin by saying that Buchanan deserved his Nobel prize for this pioneering work, and Tullock deserves the same recognition. This is as foundational a work in describing the behavior of collective institutions such as governments as "The Wealth of Nations" in describing the behavior of markets.
It is not the easiest of books to read. Not because of the prose -- Buchanan and Tullock do a good job explaining a very complex subject with clear examples. But they are laying out a whole new approach here, and I found it necessary to pause after every chapter to think through the implications and absorb the material before going on.
But, quite simply, this is a field which one simply should regard as indispensable before having an informed opinion on government, how it should be organized, what one should expect from it (both good and bad), and what one the sphere of government action should be.
There are probably easier, more modern treatments for the material, but this is the foundational work.
to-keep-reference
August 28, 2017En ese libro, Gordon Tullock y yo nos dimos el gusto y desplegamos nuestros talentos profesionales para derivar una base lógicamente coherente para una estructura política constitucional y democrática, una que parecía tener muchas de las características de la estructura política que imaginaran los Padres Fundadores. Presentamos una visión de las instituciones que históricamente han surgido en los Estados Unidos, una visión que difiere en aspectos fundamentales de la que reflejan las convenciones de la ciencia política moderna. El marco de análisis era en esencia
contractualista, en el sentido de que tratamos de explicar la aparición de las instituciones observadas y de aportar normas para los cambios en las reglas imperantes poniendo conceptualmente a las personas en posiciones idealizadas en las cuales cabía esperar que surgiera un acuerdo mutuo. El cálculo del consenso, al igual que otros libros míos, puede interpretarse como un intento de imponer una "visión de orden" sobre realidades institucionales y conductuales observadas.
Los límites de la libertad Pág.24
contractualista, en el sentido de que tratamos de explicar la aparición de las instituciones observadas y de aportar normas para los cambios en las reglas imperantes poniendo conceptualmente a las personas en posiciones idealizadas en las cuales cabía esperar que surgiera un acuerdo mutuo. El cálculo del consenso, al igual que otros libros míos, puede interpretarse como un intento de imponer una "visión de orden" sobre realidades institucionales y conductuales observadas.
Los límites de la libertad Pág.24
September 1, 2020
WELL, I have to begin by saying that I hate math (let alone calculus) and this book did not shy away from it. I also want to take this moment to voice my uncertainty with writing book reviews. Because although I don't think this was a badly WRITTEN book (on the contrary, it was very very thoroughly though out), the technicalities went over my head (and I can't say I enjoy that too much.) That being said, the ideas presented in regards to voting, economics, and our political system and various others, were very important and thought-provoking in a way I hadn't considered (and don't get me wrong, I like a book that goes a bit over my head every now and then. I think that's important.)
December 25, 2013
Interesting Quotes:
"[I]t is especially surprising that the discussion about externality in the literature of welfare economics has been centered on the external costs expected to result from *private* action of individuals or firms. To our knowledge littler or nothing has been said about the *external* costs imposed on the individual by *collective* action. Yet the existence of such external costs is inherent in the operation of any collective decision-making rule other than that of unanimity. Indeed, the essence of the collective-choice making process under majority voting rules is the fact that the minority of voters are forced to accede to actions which they cannot prevent and for which they cannot claim compensation for damages resulting. Note that this is precisely the definition previously given for externality."
-James Buchanan & Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent
"Much political discussion seems to have proceeded as follows: 'If the interests of two or more individuals conflict, unanimity is impossible. Some interests must prevail over others if action is not to be wholly stifled.' This line of reasoning seems quite plausible until one confronts ordinary economic exchange. Note that in such an exchange the interests of the two contracting parties clearly conflict. Yet unanimity is reached. Contracts are made; bargains are struck without the introduction of explicit or implicit coercion. In this case, no interest prevails over the other; both interests are furthered. Our continued repetition of this simple analogy stems from our conviction that, at base, it is the failure to grasp fully the significance of this point that has retarded progress in political theory."
-James Buchanan & Gordon Tullock, the Calculus of Consent
"When economic or market activity is observed to result in the imposition of costs on parties outside the exchange relationship, economists have tended to call attention to the 'inefficiency' in over-all resource usage that this organizational arrangement generates. They seem rarely to have brought into question the morality or ethics of the individuals participating in such activity. Individuals are assumed to seek to maximize their own utility within the limits of the effective constraints imposed on their action. Not bringing the underlying motivational assumptions into question, the economist tends, therefore, more or less automatically to think in terms of modifying the set of constraints on individual action (the redefining of property rights, the changes in the legal structure, etc.) with a view toward eliminating the inefficiencies, if possible.
"By contrast, the student of political processes, observing what is essentially the same phenomenon in another form (that is, the imposition of external costs on third parties), has not considered the inefficiency aspects seriously. Instead he has - through his emphasis on moral restraints on self-interest, his concept of the 'public interest,' etc. - sought to accomplish reform through a regeneration of individual motives. Ethical and not structural reforms tend to be emphasized. Breakdowns and failures in teh operation of the system are attributed to 'bad' men, not to the rules that constrain them."
-James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, the Calculus of Consent
"The activities and the importance of special-interest groups in the political process are not independent of either the over-all size or the composition of the governmental budget. A hypothesis explaining the increasing importance of the pressure group over the last half century need not rest on the presumption of a decline in the public morality. A far simpler and much more acceptable hypothesis is that interest-group activity, measured in terms of organizational costs, is a direct function of the 'profits' expected from the political process by functional groups. In an era when the whole of governmental activity was sharply limited and when the activities that were collectivized exerted a general impact over substantially all individuals and groups, the relative absence of organized special interests is readily explainable. However, as the importance of the public sector has increased relative to the private sector, and as this expansion has taken the form of an increasingly differential or discriminatory impact on the separate and identifiable groups of the population, the increased investment in organization aimed at securing differential gains by political means is a
predictable result.
"This relationship is not, however, one-sided. While the profitability of investment in organization is a direct function of the size of the total public sector and an inverse function of the “generality” of the government budget, both the size and the composition of the budget depend, in turn, on the amount of investment in political organization. The organized pressure group thus arises because differential advantages are expected to be secured through the political process, and, in turn, differential advantages for particular groups are produced because of the existence of organized activity. A spiral effect comes into play here, the results of which may be observed in the federal income-tax structure, federal tariff legislation, federal resource-development projects, and many other important areas of economic legislation in particular."
-James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, the Caluclus of Consent
"[I]t is especially surprising that the discussion about externality in the literature of welfare economics has been centered on the external costs expected to result from *private* action of individuals or firms. To our knowledge littler or nothing has been said about the *external* costs imposed on the individual by *collective* action. Yet the existence of such external costs is inherent in the operation of any collective decision-making rule other than that of unanimity. Indeed, the essence of the collective-choice making process under majority voting rules is the fact that the minority of voters are forced to accede to actions which they cannot prevent and for which they cannot claim compensation for damages resulting. Note that this is precisely the definition previously given for externality."
-James Buchanan & Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent
"Much political discussion seems to have proceeded as follows: 'If the interests of two or more individuals conflict, unanimity is impossible. Some interests must prevail over others if action is not to be wholly stifled.' This line of reasoning seems quite plausible until one confronts ordinary economic exchange. Note that in such an exchange the interests of the two contracting parties clearly conflict. Yet unanimity is reached. Contracts are made; bargains are struck without the introduction of explicit or implicit coercion. In this case, no interest prevails over the other; both interests are furthered. Our continued repetition of this simple analogy stems from our conviction that, at base, it is the failure to grasp fully the significance of this point that has retarded progress in political theory."
-James Buchanan & Gordon Tullock, the Calculus of Consent
"When economic or market activity is observed to result in the imposition of costs on parties outside the exchange relationship, economists have tended to call attention to the 'inefficiency' in over-all resource usage that this organizational arrangement generates. They seem rarely to have brought into question the morality or ethics of the individuals participating in such activity. Individuals are assumed to seek to maximize their own utility within the limits of the effective constraints imposed on their action. Not bringing the underlying motivational assumptions into question, the economist tends, therefore, more or less automatically to think in terms of modifying the set of constraints on individual action (the redefining of property rights, the changes in the legal structure, etc.) with a view toward eliminating the inefficiencies, if possible.
"By contrast, the student of political processes, observing what is essentially the same phenomenon in another form (that is, the imposition of external costs on third parties), has not considered the inefficiency aspects seriously. Instead he has - through his emphasis on moral restraints on self-interest, his concept of the 'public interest,' etc. - sought to accomplish reform through a regeneration of individual motives. Ethical and not structural reforms tend to be emphasized. Breakdowns and failures in teh operation of the system are attributed to 'bad' men, not to the rules that constrain them."
-James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, the Calculus of Consent
"The activities and the importance of special-interest groups in the political process are not independent of either the over-all size or the composition of the governmental budget. A hypothesis explaining the increasing importance of the pressure group over the last half century need not rest on the presumption of a decline in the public morality. A far simpler and much more acceptable hypothesis is that interest-group activity, measured in terms of organizational costs, is a direct function of the 'profits' expected from the political process by functional groups. In an era when the whole of governmental activity was sharply limited and when the activities that were collectivized exerted a general impact over substantially all individuals and groups, the relative absence of organized special interests is readily explainable. However, as the importance of the public sector has increased relative to the private sector, and as this expansion has taken the form of an increasingly differential or discriminatory impact on the separate and identifiable groups of the population, the increased investment in organization aimed at securing differential gains by political means is a
predictable result.
"This relationship is not, however, one-sided. While the profitability of investment in organization is a direct function of the size of the total public sector and an inverse function of the “generality” of the government budget, both the size and the composition of the budget depend, in turn, on the amount of investment in political organization. The organized pressure group thus arises because differential advantages are expected to be secured through the political process, and, in turn, differential advantages for particular groups are produced because of the existence of organized activity. A spiral effect comes into play here, the results of which may be observed in the federal income-tax structure, federal tariff legislation, federal resource-development projects, and many other important areas of economic legislation in particular."
-James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, the Caluclus of Consent
January 17, 2024
Unscientific, and the logical foundations are extremely silly. It's none other than a mathematical formulation of Rawls's veil of ignorance applied to constitutions. This formulation is practically explicitly spiritual, imagine a higher world of souls shapes the lower reality. I look for a natural "voting rule" which would determine the results of the imagined "first vote". This book does not do that; the authors should have read more sociobiology.
March 1, 2022
This book has to be one of the most thoroughly refuted books of any Nobel Prize winner ever, no?
June 9, 2022
A classic and a must read for any political analysist, economist and public choice theorist. Buchanan is an intellectual giant, much too underrated, even though He won the Nobel in the 1980s.
February 12, 2012
I really enjoyed Buchanan and Tullock's original (at the time) insight on public choice theory. They were among the founders of the theory and introduced the concept of government failure (as opposed to market failure). I tend to agree with their methodological individualism approach and their rejection of an organic, benevolent State (the idea that a benevolent government exists in and of itself in the pursuit of a "common good"). I agree with their assumption that governments are composed of individuals who are self-interested, utility maximizers. Of course, Buchanan and Tullock's work is subjected to the same criticisms levied against public choice as a whole, namely that it does not explain all of human behavior. Nonetheless, their work is significant for the amount of research and scholarly activity it spawned. And, their argument for a more cautious approach when relying on government to fix market failures is compelling.
September 22, 2015
I didn't pick a lot out of this book, but that's largely because I've read so many others that use this book as a foundation that there wasn't much new for me to pick. The basic assumptions made about how people act are sound, though; I would recommend understanding the methodology more than anything else out of this book. It leads to some counter intuitive conclusions, like the necessity of log rolling in political societies.
Can imagine a lot of people who could gain from this. Maybe if I had more time to go through it deeper, I could gain more, but I just don't have said time.
Can imagine a lot of people who could gain from this. Maybe if I had more time to go through it deeper, I could gain more, but I just don't have said time.
April 7, 2012
Probably more a three and a half. The concept and the underlying theory of public choice are excellent. It's incredibly common-sensical and really frames the way you look at constitutional structures. However, in terms of presentation, it was a mix of the mathematical/economical and the philosophical, which sometimes made it less than clear. Overall, a good book, particularly for those interested in individual choice and the structure of government.
January 24, 2015
A very difficult read. Once they get through the introduction, the theory presented becomes very dense and hard to take in all at once. Read in small doses so that you have time to understand what is being said.
February 12, 2009
An excellent piece by Gordon Tullock explaining how public choice is skewed by adverse incentives.
October 2, 2009
an interesting economics approach to the same problems that Rawls faced in "A Theory of Justice."
Read
September 23, 2010The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (Ann Arbor Paperbacks) by James M. Buchanan (1962)
March 16, 2016
The content is great. Very dry, but you don't read books like this for the prose.
May 22, 2016
They didn't take their conclusions 100% of the way to the very end, but the analysis of different constitutional scenarios is second to none.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews