Game theory and the study of American political development
- PDF / 610,331 Bytes
- 23 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 92 Downloads / 188 Views
Game theory and the study of American political development Sean Gailmard1 Received: 31 July 2019 / Accepted: 6 August 2019 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract Game theoretic analyses of American institutions and American political development largely are disconnected enterprises, yet they share many points of contact and thus opportunities for fruitful exchange. In this essay I discuss the value and limits of formalization for the enterprise of institutional analysis that those fields have in common. I conceptualize two broad approaches that formal modelers have taken to study institutions—institutions as game forms, and institutions as equilibria—that have been relatively successful for understanding institutional choice and stability. At the same time, formal modelers have been less successful in addressing institutional change and development, topics about which APD has much to offer. Overall, I contend that crosstalk between the two fields can benefit them both. Keywords Game theory · American political development · Political economy JEL Classification C79 · D70 Within political science, few intellectual gulfs would seem larger on first sight than that separating formal political theory and American political development (APD). One of the research traditions chiefly uses a mathematical idiom, emphasizes logical derivation, and prizes simplicity in the representation of political processes. The other primarily is verbal, often based on archival material, and tolerates complexity of representations easily. One field aspires to generality and crisp, sometimes ironic or even “counterintuitive” results; the other emphasizes contingency and accepts particularity when necessary to explain an important development. One field has most of its intellectual crosstalk with the discipline of economics, the other with history and historical sociology. In view of that yawning divide, it is perhaps unsurprising that very little research exists that straddles the boundary between the two research traditions. From the paucity of collaboration, one might even surmise that productive engagement across the two fields, like the proverbial $10 bill that the economist’s child spots on the ground, is out of equilibrium—thus, the search for either one is fruitless and best not attempted. * Sean Gailmard [email protected] 1
University of California, Berkeley, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Public Choice
I believe that the foregoing conclusion is wrong and so, in this paper, I will make the opposite argument: that important intellectual gains can be captured from exchange across these fields. In particular, I argue that the potential for a two-way dialogue between formal modeling and APD is substantial. Each can contribute to the other. My completely subjective prior belief is that both modelers and APDers readily will accept the first contention of that argument, that APD can contribute to formal theory. Formal theorists well understand their dependence on others to furnish questions
Data Loading...
