TY - JOUR
T1 - What public choice and philosophy should not learn from one another
AU - Sugden, Robert
PY - 2004/1/1
Y1 - 2004/1/1
N2 - Lomasky offers accounts of public choice and of political philosophy, in which these disciplines have complementary theories of motivation, and suggests that each discipline can learn something from the other. This note argues that these two theories of motivation share a common weakness: an a priori, non-empirical mode of analysis. Political philosophy models human beings as rational moral agents; public choice theory treats individuals as rationally self-interested. Neither theory is concerned with the psychology of actual human motivation. This common feature facilitates the transfer of ideas between the two disciplines, but it limits the usefulness of both. There is more to political motivation than can be captured by theories of reason.
AB - Lomasky offers accounts of public choice and of political philosophy, in which these disciplines have complementary theories of motivation, and suggests that each discipline can learn something from the other. This note argues that these two theories of motivation share a common weakness: an a priori, non-empirical mode of analysis. Political philosophy models human beings as rational moral agents; public choice theory treats individuals as rationally self-interested. Neither theory is concerned with the psychology of actual human motivation. This common feature facilitates the transfer of ideas between the two disciplines, but it limits the usefulness of both. There is more to political motivation than can be captured by theories of reason.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1642278694&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1536-7150.2004.00283.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1536-7150.2004.00283.x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:1642278694
VL - 63
SP - 207
EP - 211
JO - American Journal of Economics and Sociology
JF - American Journal of Economics and Sociology
SN - 0002-9246
IS - 1
ER -