Constitutional artisans: James Buchanan and Vincent Ostrom on artifactual man, the constitutional attitude, and the political economy of constitutional design

Paul Lewis, John Meadowcroft
{"title":"Constitutional artisans: James Buchanan and Vincent Ostrom on artifactual man, the constitutional attitude, and the political economy of constitutional design","authors":"Paul Lewis, John Meadowcroft","doi":"10.1007/s10602-024-09443-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper examines the relationship between the work of James Buchanan and Vincent Ostrom. It adds to existing work by providing a comprehensive analysis of Buchanan’s and Ostrom’s changing views about how the ‘logical foundations of constitutional democracy’ should be conceptualised. The paper traces how in the 1960s and 1970s Ostrom took inspiration from the rational choice analysis of constitutional democracy in Buchanan and Tullock’s <i>The Calculus of Consent</i>, explaining how it shaped his reading of key texts in political theory and his analysis of public administration. It then discusses how Buchanan subsequently drew on Ostrom’s notion of artifactual man in developing his understanding of the ‘constitutional attitude’ necessary for individuals to engage in institutional design. It then explores how, from the mid-to-late 1990s, Ostrom became increasingly critical of Buchanan’s reliance on rational choice theory for his analysis of constitutional decision-making, identifying this as a key difference between their views.</p>","PeriodicalId":44897,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional Political Economy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-024-09443-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between the work of James Buchanan and Vincent Ostrom. It adds to existing work by providing a comprehensive analysis of Buchanan’s and Ostrom’s changing views about how the ‘logical foundations of constitutional democracy’ should be conceptualised. The paper traces how in the 1960s and 1970s Ostrom took inspiration from the rational choice analysis of constitutional democracy in Buchanan and Tullock’s The Calculus of Consent, explaining how it shaped his reading of key texts in political theory and his analysis of public administration. It then discusses how Buchanan subsequently drew on Ostrom’s notion of artifactual man in developing his understanding of the ‘constitutional attitude’ necessary for individuals to engage in institutional design. It then explores how, from the mid-to-late 1990s, Ostrom became increasingly critical of Buchanan’s reliance on rational choice theory for his analysis of constitutional decision-making, identifying this as a key difference between their views.

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
宪法工匠:詹姆斯-布坎南和文森特-奥斯特罗姆论人造人、宪法态度和宪法设计的政治经济学
本文探讨了詹姆斯-布坎南和文森特-奥斯特罗姆著作之间的关系。本文全面分析了布坎南和奥斯特罗姆在 "宪政民主的逻辑基础 "概念化方面不断变化的观点,对现有研究成果进行了补充。论文追溯了 20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代奥斯特罗姆如何从布坎南和塔洛克的《同意的计算》(The Calculus of Consent)中对宪政民主的理性选择分析中获得灵感,解释了这一分析如何影响了他对政治理论主要文本的解读以及对公共行政的分析。然后讨论布坎南后来如何借鉴奥斯特罗姆的 "人造人"(artifactual man)概念来理解个人参与制度设计所需的 "宪法态度"。然后,探讨从 20 世纪 90 年代中后期开始,奥斯特罗姆如何越来越多地批评布坎南在分析宪法决策时对理性选择理论的依赖,并将此作为他们观点之间的关键差异。
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Constitutional Political Economy is a forum for research in the broad area of constitutional analysis, which lies at the intersection of several approaches in modern economics, sharing a common interest in the systematic integration of the institutional dimension - the study of political, legal and moral institutions - into economic analysis. While its primary discipline is economics, Constitutional Political Economy is explicitly interdisciplinary, aiming to encourage an exchange between the various social sciences, including law, philosophy, political science and sociology. Theoretical and empirical research, as well as contributions to constitutional policy issues, are considered for publication. Officially cited as: Const Polit Econ
期刊最新文献
Constitutional landmarks: Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Powers, Federalism, and Economic rights by Charles M. Lamb and Jacob R. Neiheisel. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. 2021. pp.296. 978-3-030-55574-0 (hardcover) Election campaign finance bans and corruption: effectiveness across parliamentary and presidential democracies The Italian Constitutional Court and recentralization along the pendulum of regionalism Non-compliance as a determinant of constitutional change? A comparative study Constitutional artisans: James Buchanan and Vincent Ostrom on artifactual man, the constitutional attitude, and the political economy of constitutional design
×
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