This chapter reviews the literature on public choice theory and constitutional design, focusing in particular on the sub-discipline of constitutional political economy. The basic framework of constitutional political economy has been in place for several decades and has produced some important insights into particular institutions. Other institutions, however, have been ignored, and there is a relatively small amount of empirical work testing the propositions. The chapter summarizes the work to date and identifies areas for more attention in the future. The chapter first reviews the core assumption that constitutional politics are really different than ordinary politics, and the corollary that the constitutional level is more likely to produce public-regarding behavior. It finds these assumptions to be less than fully convincing, in part because constitutional endurance seems to require some level of interest group behavior, and because constitutions can be transformed through amendment.Thanks to Adam Fleisher and Emily Winston for excellent research assistance. Thanks also to Daniel Farber and Saul Levmore for helpful comments and to Maxwell Stearns for sharing a draft of his forthcoming volume with Todd Zywicki (2009). Online readers should note that this piece will appear in a larger collection of papers, and so intentionally leaves many particular topics of interest to other papers in the volume.
2
Public choice and the centrality of constitutional designConstitutional design is a central concern of public choice and its related discipline of constitutional political economy. Public choice, typically described as the application of economics to political science, seeks to understand problems of aggregating preferences in collective decision-making (Mueller 1997; Farber and Frickey 1990). Constitutional political economy focuses more narrowly on the role of rules in structuring and constraining decision-making, shifting the terrain from choice within rules to the choice of higher order "constitutional" rules. As Buchanan and Brennan (1980 at 10) put it, "If rules influence outcomes and if some outcomes are "better" than others, it follows that to the extent that rules can be chosen, the study and analysis of comparative rules and institutions become proper objects of our Arrow famously showed that under certain plausible conditions, there is no voting mechanism, or indeed any other mechanism, that is guaranteed to prevent cycling among options in pairwise voting:any choice that beats another will in turn be beaten when paired against the third. The outcome of such 3 a decision-making process will depend entirely on the way in which the choices are presented. Thus control over the agenda is crucial for determining outcomes (Cooter 2000, pp. 38-46). Because the outcome of collective choice mechanisms was inherently unstable and reflected mere agenda control or perhaps insincere voting on the part of strategic actors, the idea that collective choices reflected the "true" public interest was suspect. ...