Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation [Hardcover]

Keith L. Dougherty (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: December 18, 2000 | ISBN-10: 0521782090 | ISBN-13: 978-0521782098 | Edition: 1

Rather than focus on why the states did not contribute to the national government under the Articles of Confederation, Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation asks why they, in fact, did--even when they should not have been expected to contribute. Why did states pay large portions of their requisitions to the federal government when problems of collective action and the lack of governmental incentives suggest that they should not have? Using original data, Keith L. Dougherty shows that states contributed to the national government when doing so produced local gains.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"[D]eeply interesting...Dougherty's book provides compelling evidence for what we have always known partially accounted for states' cooperation..." Donald S. Lutz, University of Houston, William and Mary Quarterly

"This book should be of interest to anyone who wants to know more about what led the framers to create the Constitution as they did, and is required reading for anyone interested in early U.S. public finance." Journal of Economic History

"COLLECTIVE ACTION UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION is a wonderful account of why state complied with congressional requistions during the Revolutionary War and under the Article Of Confederation. This book is an excellent example of the useful application of social choice theory to provide insights into the historical events." The Law and Politics Book Review

"Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation is a laudable effort to bring modern social science to bear on key problems of political history." Political Science Quarterly

"Dougherty provides ample food for thought in this volume, and gives readers an interesting analysis of the first dozen years of U.S. politics...thought-provoking and insightful...For anyone interested in a solid analysis of government under the Articles, this book is very worthwhile." Public Choice

"Dougherty's handling of these amendments is deft and contributes in an area that is almost always ignored." American Historical Review

Book Description

Rather than focusing on why the states did not contribute to the national government under the Articles of Confederation, Collective Action and the Articles of Confederation asks why they, in fact, did--even when they should not have been expected to contribute. Why did states pay large portions of their requisitions to the federal government when problems of collective action and the lack of governmental incentives suggest that they should not have?Using original data, Keith L. Dougherty shows that states contributed to the national government when doing so produced local gains.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 224 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (December 18, 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521782090
• ISBN-13: 978-0521782098
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.4 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,004,771 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent. Smashes the Conventional Wisdom., October 13, 2008

By 

Kevin R. C. Gutzman (Connecticut) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation (Paperback)

The conventional wisdom says that the states were stingy and selfish during the Revolution. According to Federalist propaganda, they held back money so selfishly that they nearly caused the defeat of Washington's forces. In the Revolution's aftermath, the story goes, only adoption of the federal Constitution prevented "chaos" and limitless bloodshed.

This book proves that contrary to the Federalist propaganda, the states actually contributed more to the Confederation than a rational-choice model would predict. My conclusion: Richard Henry Lee, a one-time president of Congress from Virginia, was right to say that the financial difficulties faced by Congress in 1787-88 resulted from an enormous war against the world's most powerful nation, not from the failure of the free, decentralized government for which the war had been fought. In other words, George Mason was right to say that it didn't make sense to surrender decentralized, republican government in 1787-88 only four years after winning it in 1783.

It seems to me that the Federalist "there's-a-crisis-and-it's-too-complicated-for-you-to-understand-you-boob-so-hurry-and-give-us-much-more-power-before-we-all-end-up-speaking-Spanish" propaganda of the 1780s had a lot in common with the propaganda behind the Bush-Bernanke Billionaire Bailout of 2008. For some reason, the average Joe/Jane can be swayed by officials who say that we have to hurry and surrender a large portion of our liberty to them or else the world will come to an end. Alas.

Anyway, read this book. It reveals that much of _The Federalist_ is a lot of hooey. (That's a technical legal term.) For the full story of the Confederation and Constitution, also see my The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides)

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Scholarship for the general reader, February 11, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation (Hardcover)

The main audience for this book is among academics and professionals. However, as a general reader, I found it to be an easy-to-follow narrative leading to two fascinating discoveries that defy the common wisdom. Again we see that the founding fathers were not gods, but astute, give-and-take politicians far removed from today's sausage makers.

The American confederation of sovereign states assumed that patriotism and civic duty would make it work. However, history tells us that federations are doomed to weak performance because of the self-interest of the participants. The author confirms this, but then demonstrates that paradoxically collective results were best when the interest of the individual state was its prime motivating factor. Adam Smith in politics? Nobility and high purpose played a role in the American case but it was local self-interest that got results.

Before coming to this conclusion, Dougherty describes how the Confederation came about and the problems with its structure. He then shows the structure at work during the Revolution and during its aftermath culminating in Shays' Rebellion. Those experiences coupled with ongoing foreign affairs problems caused the nation to realize that a confederation of civically minded republics was no longer a viable organizing principle.

In describing the road to the new constitution, the author presents another interesting finding. The constitution was the outcome not only of a quest for the best institutional design but also of a pragmatic need to have reforms ratified. How do you get all thirteen state legislatures to give up power? You by-pass them and trust that the end will justify the means. Accordingly, the Constitution legitimized the constitutional convention process that created it. Clever founders. The legislatures had to fall in line.

This work of scholarship reflects diligent research and sets out to prove its findings rather than to merely present information that supports an opinion. Mathematical logic is employed sparingly to simplify in the same way that equations simplify word problems in algebra. For those so inclined, the heavy-duty math is confined to the appendix.

Both methodology and usefulness in the modern science of politics distinguish this book. Practical lessons for the UN, the European Union and many others abide here. I also found it to be highly informative history. The writing is clear and does not waste words. However, it would be more appealing to general readers if most of the footnotes, where a wealth of information lies, were incorporated into the text.