Homo Economicus and the Theory of Public Choice: J. Buchanan vs. E. Ostrom

Hongkeun Yoon
{"title":"Homo Economicus and the Theory of Public Choice: J. Buchanan vs. E. Ostrom","authors":"Hongkeun Yoon","doi":"10.55795/jpc.2023.2.1.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to compare and analyze the public choice theory of J. Buchanan and E. Ostrom. Buchanan and Ostrom are in the same position in that they are based on the neoclassical economics‘ concept of man. However, differences are found in the concrete conceptualization of economic man. Unlike Buchanan's consistent adherence to the concept of the economic man as a utility-maximizer, Ostrom accepts the concept of the economic man, but in addition to it, he acts rationally in the long-term view through people's ability to learn and the process of trial and error. The ability to do is treated as a key variable. Although the two researchers explain the dilemma of collective action of economic human beings, it is also a big difference that they each hold the constitutional system reform theory and the self-governing institution as a solution to overcome it. The differences in their institutional solutions for overcoming the collective action dilemma seem to originate fundamentally from differences in research approach methodology. Buchanan develops the argument with the explanatory frame of a social contract between utility-maximizing seekers. Through an empirical case analysis of successful shared resource management cases, Ostrom present design principles of self-governing institution to overcome the collective action dilemma through an inductive approach. This paper aims to clarify how fundamental differences in research approaches lead to two different types of institutional solutions.","PeriodicalId":211752,"journal":{"name":"Korea Public Choice Association","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korea Public Choice Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55795/jpc.2023.2.1.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to compare and analyze the public choice theory of J. Buchanan and E. Ostrom. Buchanan and Ostrom are in the same position in that they are based on the neoclassical economics‘ concept of man. However, differences are found in the concrete conceptualization of economic man. Unlike Buchanan's consistent adherence to the concept of the economic man as a utility-maximizer, Ostrom accepts the concept of the economic man, but in addition to it, he acts rationally in the long-term view through people's ability to learn and the process of trial and error. The ability to do is treated as a key variable. Although the two researchers explain the dilemma of collective action of economic human beings, it is also a big difference that they each hold the constitutional system reform theory and the self-governing institution as a solution to overcome it. The differences in their institutional solutions for overcoming the collective action dilemma seem to originate fundamentally from differences in research approach methodology. Buchanan develops the argument with the explanatory frame of a social contract between utility-maximizing seekers. Through an empirical case analysis of successful shared resource management cases, Ostrom present design principles of self-governing institution to overcome the collective action dilemma through an inductive approach. This paper aims to clarify how fundamental differences in research approaches lead to two different types of institutional solutions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经济人与公共选择理论:J.布坎南与E.奥斯特罗姆
本研究旨在比较和分析布坎南和奥斯特罗姆的公共选择理论。布坎南和奥斯特罗姆的立场相同,因为他们都是以新古典经济学的人的概念为基础的。然而,在经济人的具体概念上存在差异。与布坎南一贯坚持经济人是效用最大化者的概念不同,奥斯特罗姆接受经济人的概念,但除此之外,他通过人的学习能力和试错过程,从长远的角度理性行事。做事的能力被视为一个关键变量。虽然两位研究者都解释了经济人集体行动的困境,但他们都将宪政制度改革理论和自治制度作为克服这一困境的解决方案,这也是一个很大的不同。他们在克服集体行动困境的制度解决方案上的差异似乎从根本上源于研究方法的差异。布坎南用效用最大化追求者之间社会契约的解释框架展开了这一论点。奥斯特罗姆通过对成功的共享资源管理案例的实证分析,通过归纳的方法提出了克服集体行动困境的自治制度设计原则。本文旨在阐明研究方法的根本差异如何导致两种不同类型的制度解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Legal Issues of Legaltech Industrialization and the Importance of Limiting Rent Seeking to Public Choice Homo Economicus and the Theory of Public Choice: J. Buchanan vs. E. Ostrom A Study on Meta-evaluation of Public Organizations Performance Evaluation: Based on Public Value Management Analysis of Expected Financial Problems under Consolidation of Metropolitan Local Governments: In the Case of Daegu Metropolitan City Public Choice School’s Response to Austrian Business Cycle Theory: ABCT versus PBCT
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1