Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:45:24.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contractarian ideology and the legitimacy of government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2020

Randall G. Holcombe Open the ORCID record for Randall G. Holcombe [Opens in a new window]
Randall G. Holcombe*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL32306, USA
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social contract theory depicts a constitutional contract as the result of a hypothetical agreement among society's members to escape a prisoners' dilemma situation. It depicts citizens as political equals agreeing to be forced into a cooperative strategy rather than a socially suboptimal strategy that gives them the highest personal payoff. Government is the organization that forces everyone to cooperate. However, citizens can never bargain as political equals. An elite few design the rules, and others are forced to comply with them. The contractarian ideology that depicts government as acting in the general public interest legitimizes the actions of government, giving those elite few who hold government power a greater ability to use it to further their own interests, often at the expense of the masses. Within the context of a prisoners' dilemma game, contractarian ideology leads to an outcome that is socially suboptimal, but beneficial for the political elite.

Keywords

Social contract; prisoners' dilemmalegitimacy of governmentThomas HobbesJohn Locke, Jean Jacques RousseauJohn RawlsJames M. Buchanan
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , June 2021 , pp. 379 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2020

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

Bailyn, B. (1992), The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Engl. edn), Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
Bartels, L.M. (2008), Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beard, C.A. (1913), An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Benson, B.L. (2020), ‘The Development and Evolution of Predatory-State Institutions and Organizations: Beliefs, Violence, Conquest, Coercion, and Rent-Seeking’, Public Choice, 182(3/4): 303–329.10.1007/s11127-019-00667-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G. and Buchanan, J.M. (1985). The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1962), ‘Politics, Policy, and the Pigouvian Margins’, Economica, n.s. 29(113): 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1965), ‘An Economic Theory of Clubs’, Economica, n.s. 32(125): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1969), Cost and Choice: An Inquiry in Economic Theory, Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1975), The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (2000), ‘The Soul of Classical Liberalism’, The Independent Review, 5(1): 111–119.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (2005), ‘Afraid to be Free: Dependency as Desideratum’, Public Choice, 124(1/2): 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. and Congleton, R.D. (1998), Politics by Principle, Not Interest: Toward Nondiscriminatory Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. and Tullock, G. (1962), The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, B. (2007), The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Coase, R.H. (1960), ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, Journal of Law & Economics, 3: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jasay, A. (1989), Social Contract, Free Ride: A Study of the Public Goods Problem, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
de Jasay, A. (1998), The State, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Edelman, M. (1964), The Symbolic Uses of Politics, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J.K. (1983), The Anatomy of Power, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, M. (2012), Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, New York: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, J.S. and Pierson, P. (2010), Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1950 [orig. 1651]), Leviathan. New York, E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
Hochman, H.M. and Rodgers, J.D. (1969), ‘Pareto Optimal Redistribution’, American Economic Review, 59(4, pt 1): 542–557.Google Scholar
Holcombe, R.G. (2018a), Political Capitalism: How Economic and Political Power Is Made and Maintained, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holcombe, R.G. (2018b), ‘The Coase Theorem, Applied to Markets and Government’, The Independent Review, 23(2): 249–266.Google Scholar
Holcombe, R.G. (2020), ‘Progressive Democracy: The Ideology of the Predatory State’, Public Choice, 182(3/4): 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (1979 [orig 1748]), ‘Of the Original Contract’, in Alastair C. MacIntyre, ed., Hume's Ethical Writings: Selections from David Hume, South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 255–274.Google Scholar
Krueger, A.O. (1974), ‘The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society’, American Economic Review, 64(3): 291–303.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1960 [orig. 1690]), Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, C.W. (1956), The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murtazashvili, J. and Murtazashvili, I. (2020), ‘Wealth-Destroying States’, Public Choice, 182(3/4): 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D.C, Wallis, J.J. and Weingast, B.R. (2009), Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. Jr. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2018), Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J.J. (1762), The social contract, or principles of political right. Translated by G.D.H. Cole, www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J.A. (1950), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (3rd edn), New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1964 [orig. 1759]), The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Stigler, G.J. (1971), ‘The Theory of Economic Regulation’, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, G.J. and Becker, G.S. (1977), ‘De Gustibus Non Est Diputandum’, American Economic Review, 67(2): 76–90.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J.E. (2012), The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers the Future, New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. (1967), ‘The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft’, Western Economic Journal, 5(3): 224–232.Google Scholar
Yeager, L.B. (1985), ‘Rights, Contract, and Utility in Policy Espousal’, Cato Journal, 5(1): 259–294.Google Scholar
Yeager, L.B. (2001), Ethics as a Social Science, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar