What does it mean to think about politics realistically rather than romantically? What should economists really do? And is what they do (too) wrapped up in the materialistic pursuit of utility maximization? These are just some of the questions that Nobel laureate James M. Buchanan tried to answer in his life’s work. In this episode, EconTalk host Russ Roberts welcomes back Don Boudreaux to discuss Buchanan’s legacy, and two articles of Buchanan’s in particular, “What Should Economists Do?” and “Natural and Artifactual Man,” both found in Volume 1 of Buchanan’s Collected Works.
The conversation begins with an overview of Public Choice, largely the basis on which Buchanan was awarded the Nobel prize in 1986. But as Boudreaux is quick to point out, Buchanan’s intellectual legacy goes far beyond Public Choice. Let’s hear your reaction to the conversation between Roberts and Boudreaux. Use the prompts below to continue the conversation- here online or offline with others.
1- Why do Roberts and Boudreaux think the reaction to Buchanan’s Nobel was so unenthusiastic? When public choice is defined as, “Politicians are self-interested,” what’s missing?
2- What should economists do??? In what ways was Buchanan pushing back against the dominance of Welfare Economics at the time of this address? What’s wrong with the way we teach economics according to Buchanan’s view?
3- Boudreaux argues one reason why a lot of more hardcore libertarians don’t like Buchanan is because Buchanan always insisted on modeling politics as exchange. Why might this be the case? How are markets and politics both examples of emergent orders?
4- What is “artifactual man,” according to Buchanan? How does this second article build on the first, according to Boudreaux?
5- Boudreaux cites one of his favorite quotes from Buchanan: ‘Man wants freedom to become the man he wants to become.’ What IS Buchanan’s case for freedom? Is this case convincing? Sufficient?
Bonus Question: Roberts and Boudreaux offer “twitter versions” of Nobels of Buchanan and James Tobin. Can you come up with some others? Here’s the list of Economic Sciences Nobel prizes. Share yours on twitter, and tag us @Econlib and @EconTalker.
READER COMMENTS
John Alcorn
Jan 19 2021 at 6:59pm
1) Good science seems obvious after the fact, but it took Buchanan to get there. Public choice also says voters have scant incentive to vote well because an individual vote is never decisive in a large election.
2) Work on real problems. Explain behaviors and their unintended social consequences. Analyze trade-offs. Conduct experiments. Construct data sets. Build models and assess their realism. Design mechanisms. Aim at truth. Champion choice, honest competition, market prices, and wise generosity.
3) Buchanan reasons to conclusions, not the other way around.
4 & 5) Self-improvement. But a proverb states that a fool at forty is a fool indeed. And often it seems that personality is destiny. But Buchanan (like J. S. Mill and Tolstoy) reminds us of freedom’s true purpose, to have elbow room for bootstrapping.
Amy Willis
Jan 22 2021 at 7:48am
@John, I love your invocation of bootstrapping. I’m reminded of Buchanan’s biographical essay, “Better than Plowing.” While the essay isn’t available online, here’s Deirdre McCloskey’s review: https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/Article_216.pdf
Jensy
Feb 1 2021 at 10:08am
Long time listener, first time poster.
#5)This episode touched me, specifically because I’m a mid-career professional doing very well by all measuring sticks society gives us, working in the private sector. For some reason, I want something different, which those close to me describe as “feeling relevant”. I have called it delivering real solutions by reinventing the wheel in the public sector. The opportunity cost is too high with kids and a house payment. Buchanan’s point is extremely convincing. All I want is to make a difference and freedom from the worry of setting myself back, and I make my financial decisions and career decisions surrounding the shortest possible path to get there.
Philosophically, I think the advent of two working parents has destroyed this part of society. We are all spread too thin through consumerism and we don’t have enough time to think about what we are missing. Even our activism we may choose to spend our limited time on is draining and filled with half-truths that results in policy wars with very clear financial winners. Every citizen in Rome had a seat at the Coliseum.
#1)Is it possible that politicians are not actually self-interested, but just ignorant? The level of utility each individual places on being a decent human being differs, so just considering it zero makes decisions easier. A politician would need to talk to any engaged party, and any member of the supply chain (or downstream chain) to figure out the real outcome for a given scenario, and that just isn’t realistic when there are actors with solutions in search of problems. The problem is the obvious exploitation of the incentive effect for wealth effect in these situations. Buchanan’s work on describing the need to wholly rip apart the entire chain to really fix any problem wholly instead of with these figureheads inflating our minds with propaganda.
Comments are closed.