IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/amerec/v49y2005i1p66-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Choice Economics: Where is there Consensus?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Whaples
  • Jac C. Heckelman

Abstract

Are public choice scholars' conclusions accepted by rank–and–file economists and political scientists? If not, why not? To answer these questions we use survey results to compare the conclusions of self–identified public choice scholars with those in the adjacent disciplines of economics and political science. We examine thirty–five propositions in seven areas: (1) assumptions about political actors; (2) normative beliefs about government and voting; (3) elections and economic performance; (4) parties, platforms, voting and preferences; (5) government's purposes and growth; (6) individual behavior–voting–with–feet and free riding; and (7) government and the market. We conclude that, although there is consensus on many of the issues, there is substantial remaining disagreement on many questions that appears to be tied to the competing presuppositions of scholars in economics and political science.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Whaples & Jac C. Heckelman, 2005. "Public Choice Economics: Where is there Consensus?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 49(1), pages 66-78, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:amerec:v:49:y:2005:i:1:p:66-78
    DOI: 10.1177/056943450504900105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/056943450504900105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/056943450504900105?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jac C. Heckelman, 2010. "The Connection between Democratic Freedoms and Growth in Transition Economies," Applied Economics Quarterly (formerly: Konjunkturpolitik), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 56(2), pages 121-146.
    2. Daniel B. Klein & Charlotta Stern, 2007. "Is There a Free‐Market Economist in the House? The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 309-334, April.
    3. Niclas Berggren & Henrik Jordahl & Charlotta Stern, 2009. "The Political Opinions of Swedish Social Scientists," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 22(2), pages 75-88, Autumn.
    4. Daniel B. Klein & Stewart Dompe, 2007. "Reasons for Supporting the Minimum Wage: Asking Signatories of the "Raise the Minimum Wage" Statement," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 4(1), pages 125-167, January.
    5. Ann Mari May & Mary G. Mcgarvey & Robert Whaples, 2014. "Are Disagreements Among Male And Female Economists Marginal At Best?: A Survey Of Aea Members And Their Views On Economics And Economic Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 32(1), pages 111-132, January.
    6. Charles A. Rarick, 2007. "Economic Sanctions: Failed Foreign Policy Tool And A Cost To American Business," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 65-70, September.
    7. Robert Whaples, 2009. "The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members: The Results of a New Survey," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 6(3), pages 337-348, September.
    8. Michele Di Maio, 2013. "Are Mainstream and Heterodox Economists Different? An Empirical Analysis," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(5), pages 1315-1348, November.
    9. Abdel-Hameed Nawar, 2021. "Do economics and political Science scholars differ on public choice issues? Survey evidence from Brazil," Working Papers 192, International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.

    More about this item

    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:sae:amerec:v:49:y:2005:i:1:p:66-78. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/aex .

    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.