IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v190y2022i3d10.1007_s11127-021-00943-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Philadelphia reconsidered: participant curation, the Gerry Committee, and US constitutional design

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen C. Phillips

    (University of Florida)

  • Alex P. Smith

    (Oklahoma State University)

  • Peter R. Licari

    (University of Florida)

Abstract

Legislative design was a critical question at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The peculiar compromise that was struck—featuring proportional and republican elements—defies the logic of the Convention’s majority rule. We investigate how in establishing the new national legislature, small state delegates were able to prevail over the large state majority and secure the Connecticut Compromise. We argue that the small state coalition’s victory owes to their strategy at a critical juncture: the Gerry Committee. The Gerry Committee amplified the contours of the debate over legislative design and the careful curation of its participants precipitated a shift of structural and creative freedom allowing for the consideration of alternative solutions. The Committee produced an environment favorable to a compromise on legislative structure and power by manipulating the policy dimensions connecting representation, taxation, and slavery. Participant curation was essential in allowing political opponents—the small states—to overcome unfavorable conditions, maximize utility, and craft a proposal capable of approval by delegates and eventual constitutional ratification.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen C. Phillips & Alex P. Smith & Peter R. Licari, 2022. "Philadelphia reconsidered: participant curation, the Gerry Committee, and US constitutional design," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 190(3), pages 407-426, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:190:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-021-00943-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-021-00943-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-021-00943-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-021-00943-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:wly:soecon:v:82:3:y:2016:p:781-800 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Heckelman, Jac C. & Dougherty, Keith L., 2007. "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Revisited," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 829-848, December.
    3. Jillson, Calvin C., 1981. "Constitution-Making: Alignment and Realignment in the Federal Convention of 1787," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(3), pages 598-612, September.
    4. Diamond, Martin, 1959. "Democracy and The Federalist: A Reconsideration of the Framers' Intent," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 52-68, March.
    5. Beard, Charles A., 1913. "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 127, number beard1913.
    6. Riker, William H., 1984. "The Heresthetics of Constitution-Making: The Presidency in 1787, with Comments on Determinism and Rational Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Robertson, David Brian, 2006. "A Pivotal Politician and Constitutional Design," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 303-308, May.
    8. McLEAN, IAIN, 2002. "William H. Riker and the Invention of Heresthetic(s)," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 535-558, July.
    9. Robertson, David Brian, 2005. "Madison's Opponents and Constitutional Design," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(2), pages 225-243, May.
    10. Dougherty, Keith L. & Heckelman, Jac C., 2006. "A Pivotal Voter from a Pivotal State: Roger Sherman at the Constitutional Convention," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 297-302, May.
    11. William Riker, 1987. "The lessons of 1787," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 5-34, September.
    12. Keith Dougherty & Jac Heckelman, 2008. "Voting on slavery at the Constitutional Convention," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 293-313, September.
    13. Jeremy C. Pope & Shawn Treier, 2011. "Reconsidering the Great Compromise at the Federal Convention of 1787: Deliberation and Agenda Effects on the Senate and Slavery," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 289-306, April.
    14. Roche, John P., 1961. "The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 799-816, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul D. Carlsen & Jac C. Heckelman, 2016. "State bloc versus individual delegate voting at the constitutional convention: Did it make a difference?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 781-800, January.
    2. Stefan Voigt, 1996. "Pure eclecticism—The tool kit of the constitutional economist," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 177-196, September.
    3. Denise L. Anthony & Douglas D. Heckathorn & Steven M. Maser, 1994. "Rational Rhetoric in Politics," Rationality and Society, , vol. 6(4), pages 489-518, October.
    4. Phillip W. Magness & Art Carden & Ilia Murtazashvili, 2023. "Gordon Tullock and the economics of slavery," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 185-199, October.
    5. Frimpong Boamah, Emmanuel, 2018. "Constitutional economics of Ghana’s decentralization," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 256-267.
    6. Eloi Laurent & Jacques Le Cacheux, 2006. "Integrity and Efficiency in the EU: The Case against the European economic constitution," Working Papers hal-00972707, HAL.
    7. Farley Grubb, 2008. "Testing for the Economic Impact of the U.S. Constitution: Purchasing Power Parity across the Colonies versus across the States, 1748-1811," NBER Working Papers 13836, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christine Mahoney, 2008. "Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 435-449, September.
    9. Anke Gerber & Andreas Nicklisch & Stefan Voigt, 2013. "Strategic Choices for Redistribution and the Veil of Ignorance: Theory and Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 4423, CESifo.
    10. Thomas J. Sargent, 2012. "Nobel Lecture: United States Then, Europe Now," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(1), pages 1-40.
    11. Voigt, Stefan, 2011. "Empirical constitutional economics: Onward and upward?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 319-330.
    12. Russell Sobel, 1996. "Vibert's European union: A United Nations or a United States?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 309-316, December.
    13. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2014. "Empirical social choice: an introduction," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 297-310, March.
    14. Holcombe,Randall G., 2018. "Political Capitalism," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108449908.
    15. Murray Wolfson, 1995. "A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand: Presidential Address to the Peace Science Society," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 14(2), pages 115-141, September.
    16. Eloi Laurent & Jacques Le Cacheux, 2007. "What (Economic) Constitution Does the EU Need ?," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-00972757, HAL.
    17. Alan Lockard, 2005. "Samuel Kernell (Ed.), James Madison: The theory and practice of Republican government. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003. ix + 381 pages. USD 65.00 (cloth)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 235-241, April.
    18. Ben Baack & Robert A. McGuire & T. Norman Van Cott, 2009. "Constitutional Agreement during the Drafting of the Constitution: A New Interpretation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 533-567, June.
    19. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/3531 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Scott Dallman & Anusha Nath & Filip Premik, 2021. "The Effect of Constitutional Provisions on Education Policy and Outcomes," Staff Report 623, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    21. Cohen, Alon, 2014. "Independent judicial review: A blessing in disguise," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 209-220.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    US Constitutional Convention; Committees; Legislative rules; American founding; Political institutions; Political strategy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:190:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11127-021-00943-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.