Customer Reviews

Government Failure: A Primer in Public Choice

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Since this is a book written by three authors separately, I shall discuss each part on its own, but first a few general remarks.

My biggest gripe is that the primary topic is not "public choice" per se, but rather "rent-seeking" with some discussion about externalities and so forth. While the discussion is illuminating and generally crisp and comprehensible, the over-use of the term "public choice analyis" proved annoying: Hardly a page went by without "public choice analyis," sometimes twice in the same sentence.

The general thrust of the text is that, however well-intentioned, no government can sustain a vibrant and diverse welfare-state over the long-term. Entrenched bureaucracies simply can't cope with the vagaries and varieties of human desires. Only the free market can hope to provide for the panoply of individuals' interests.

Part I: A concise, lucid, introduction to the theory of public choice. Professor Tullock has a definitely "small-government" mentality (which I share), but his discussion is still even-handed. The sole problem I have is that the few tables and graphs he employs are completely unitelligible to me. Fortunately, they're not essential, as his writing should be clear enough. The most important topics are rent-seeking and log-rolling, the former of which is the topic most treated by the co-authors. Also of interest is the discussion about bureaucracies.

Part II: A far ranging, perhaps wandering, discussion of the application of rent-seeking to American regulatory policy. Brady writes with a slightly more fervent tone than does Tullock, with a clear but tempered opinion of the roles lawyers, regulators, etc. Generally interesting, but the chapters somewhat lack coherence with each other beyond the theory.

Part III: Sheldon here presents the most entertaining and forcefully written section of the book. Full of vigor, he brings ip several issues that are of critical interest to proponents of small government: the Fabian fallacy, the growth of addiction to the welfare-state, and the welfare-state's role in the collapse of the family.

A great introduction for the interested student of politics or economics.

Collaboratively written by American economists Gordon Tullock, Gordon Brady, and British economist Arthur Seldon, Government Failure: A Primer In Public Choice is a cold, unforgiving look at governmental economic policies, ranging from how American special interest groups lobby reap enormous and destructive favors, to the manifold disasters that have come from British governmental interventions in the economy. A caution about he concentration of power promoted by the European Union rounds out this stark, scholarly, and persuasive treatise. Also available in hardcover (193086521X..,), Government Failure is strongly recommended reading for students of Economics and Political Science.

I'm entirely sympathetic to the ideas of Public Choice Theory from my other reading.
However, I did not find these ideas to be well presented in this book.
The first problem is the different styles of the 3 authors:
Tullock has a sketchy meandering style. This is not a comprehensive overview. He digresses into apologetics for how preliminary many of his conclusions are. His presentation of crucial concepts is not as clear or as compelling as it deserves to be. He fails to address many obvious counter arguments.
Brady has the opposite problem from sketchy: He spends far more time than necessary in his chapter on internet regulation in presenting the technical weeds of internet history.
Seldon is the best writer of the three, presenting well structured and engaging ideas. Some of his non-essential historical comments (Lincoln) are wrong headed as other reviewers have observed.

Since one on the Chapters is titled Bureaucracy, I was stunned that no reference is made to von Mises' legendary "Bureaucracy" (1944). I took the opportunity to finally read it (free at the mises.org site).
Wow! what a difference! Mises is compelling, comprehensive, cogent, well structured, erudite and convincing. His historical references span all cultures and eras. In one paragraph he demolishes Keynesian bureaucracy more brilliantly than I've seen anywhere. Hat's off to Mises. Shame on these 3 for ignoring him.

This is a great book to get the reader started into the Public Choice branch of economics and politics. It is a must read for people looking to jump into the much more complicated books on public choice.

The other reviewers have provided well-stated synopses of the arguments so I will skip to my opinion of the book.

"Government Failure" is a quick dip into political theory. It presents a particular school of thought and how that school would (should) perceive the current state of government. One can read the book in an afternoon and feel as though one has learned something. What it lacks, however, is a compelling argument that would convince anyone reading the theory with a critical eye.

One of the first problems is that even Mr. Tullock, a founder of the theory, does not actually like the term "public choice". Mr. Seldon also questions the appropriateness of the term. Coining a term, using it in a book title, then undermining its applicability in that same book casts some doubt on how thoroughly they have thought through this.

A second problem is that most claims made are unsubstantiated. What the reader is getting is logic that interpolates personal opinion and presents it as a truth. It is a perfectly acceptable approach when one considers this a philosophical tract, but not an acceptable approach if the intent is to "tell it like it is".

A third, more egregious problem, is the looseness of the the term "self interest". I would argue that, much like the demand curve, the meaning and degree of self interest a person demonstrates is not constant, but subject to external influencers or moods. Thus it is not necessarily a contradiction to expect an elected official to behave in a manner that has nothing to do with his/her interest in getting re-elected. This does not mean they don't care; it just means that it is not a factor in the decision.

Alas, this brief treatise does not do a credible job of defining terms. It does a somewhat better job with "log rolling" but chooses to define "rent seeking" using the words "rent" and "seek" in its definition. The rent-seeking examples provided were also less illuminating. One that stands out has to do with the mortgage deduction on the income tax. I believe Tullock is arguing that by making homeownership look attractive it ends up costing people more to move from one domicle to another than it would if they just stayed in apartments. But he doesn't explicitly state that, or even connect the dots for you.

Moreover, to use the loosely defined "self-interet" argument, it is reasonable to think that several factors come into play when a person chooses to buy a residence versus renting. People are very good at rationalizing decisions that on paper do not appear to be the most economically efficient. Why? Because the bottom line is not always the driver of human decisions.

Finally, question the critical praise on the back of the cover. One professor is quoted as saying "The scope of government control and activity has burgeoned far beyond the conception of the founders of the American republic." Consider the government's mission (aka the Preamble to the Consitution): form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. These are very broad statements indeed; it seems reasonable to argue that several interpretations were possible at the time they were made, just as several are possible now.

This book is a somewhat useful introduction to a theory that doesn't seem to have a good name. It is a good book for information gathering but not particularly enlightening.

Not terribly useful, though a good introductory review of log-rolling and rent-seeking. Might perhaps do as a book for an introductory Political Science course if backed up with significant amounts of other material.

Arthur Seldon uses Abraham Lincoln as an example of a leader who believed in limited government, "of the people, by the people, and for the people". In actuality, Lincoln lead a failed government attempt at state railroad building when he was in the Illinois legislature. He instituted the first conscription in the United States, and the first income tax. He lead the charge of an unconstitutional export tax on Southern cotton and then an actual blockade. He intimidated the Supreme Court and executed Union soldiers for sleeping on duty. Seldon should do a bit of reading about Lincoln before he uses him as an icon for small government. I, personally, was so turned off by the introduction that I couldn't bring myself to read the book.